Yeah I'm confused by that too. He has a right to bear arms. He just can't buy one from an FFL yet. He can legally be given one by his parents. Wisconsin apparently open carry is legal. Unless it's some bs like "possession of a weapon during the commission of a crime" or something.
Some are claiming an exemption, but I've yet to see proof. Not claiming they're wrong, but I can't find any exemptions in WI gun laws that would cover this.
Some are claiming an exemption, but I've yet to see proof. Not claiming they're wrong, but I can't find any exemptions in WI gun laws that would cover this.
Here's a post I made on weekend gunnit where I THINK I cited the proper laws. Honestly though, it's pretty confusing.
As a side note: I find the way this law is written weird. It's like they make this law and write it down, and then in the sub note say that it only applies in like 3 very specific circumstances. Wouldn't it make more sense to put those exceptions first? I think that's why so many people think it is illegal.
941.28 is talking about SBR's. The ar-15 he had was not an SBR so it doesn't apply.
29.304 is just further restrictions on people if they're under the age of 16, but nothing seems to apply if they're over the age of 16.
29.593 talks about the need for a hunting licence.
There's nothing saying he can't be in possession of it at the age of 17. If he was using it for hunting/target shooting, it appears that he'd need a licence and/or adult supervision (which even though he wasn't technically hunting, he did have adult supervision and I wouldn't be surprised if he had his hunting licence either).
A demonstrated need to protect one's self from violent aggression is exception. There's legal conflict on this, and they'll go to Case Law over it. We don't know if that was Kyle's AR, or if it was handed to him by someone there.
They'll argue this, but the defense can argue that there is no law (outside of open carry) where it specifically states he could not discharge a weapon in self-defense (which the case for is pretty much a slam dunk at this point) and thus demonstrated need.
(1) In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded...(etc)
(2)
(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28
941.28 No person may sell or offer to sell, transport, purchase, possess or go armed with a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.
Nope. It's an illegal law. The 2nd Amendment does not impose age restrictions. They've got nothing. Plus 948.60 only applies if you are breaking a hunting regulation. The staff running the DA's office must be full of diversity hires to manage to screw this up so badly.
That doesn't sound plausible. Age restrictions on carrying will be upheld by every court in the US. Unless he has a WI hunting license, I don't see how he is not in violation of the statute. Probably have to pay a fine or something.
Yep, only applies to pistols and short barreled rifles and shotguns. Retarded internet lawyers would have every jail in the State of Wisconsin full of 17 year olds on the first day of hunting season if their mis-reading of the statute was correct.
This is an add on charge used to force a plea deal. They are often found unconstitutional because no specific law was violated on its own, it's just an attempt to run up punishment for a different law.
This. It's called "candy." They pad all these charges to make a plea deal look like a bargain, when in reality it's a railroading tactic to preserve conviction rates. Basically a baseball card stat for a lawyer. It doesn't have to be right or wrong, as long as they win. Justice is a farce and if you don't have the money to spread across the whole procedure, you are fucked.
Close family friend got tied up with the Feds. His offer was, go to court and take a chance on 30 years, or accept the plea deal of 3 months. 100% innocent, he took the deal, and the US Attorney got a scalp.
Federal Law is age 16, Wi law is 18. it's my understanding that Federal law supersedes State Law. Then again, the Constitution states - SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, which supersedes all of it.
bottom line - we all have a God Given Right to Self Defense.
*Libtards are all triggered because one of the dudes got it in the head. "ooooh headshot is illegal!!" Yeah - no it isn't. Maybe in Call of Duty or GTA, but this is real life you wing nut! aaaaaarrrrrghghgh
*
Yep. Zero evidence of it. Slandering a minor.
What’s the deal with the possession of a dangerous weapon charge? Are minors not allowed to have an AR in Wisconsin?
Yeah I'm confused by that too. He has a right to bear arms. He just can't buy one from an FFL yet. He can legally be given one by his parents. Wisconsin apparently open carry is legal. Unless it's some bs like "possession of a weapon during the commission of a crime" or something.
Open carry in WI is legal over 18.
Some are claiming an exemption, but I've yet to see proof. Not claiming they're wrong, but I can't find any exemptions in WI gun laws that would cover this.
Wisconsin lost their authority to quote laws out of the books when they made the decision to stop enforcing law in certain areas.
Here's a post I made on weekend gunnit where I THINK I cited the proper laws. Honestly though, it's pretty confusing.
https://weekendgunnit.win/p/GvTjuEst/x/c/16ZDlu6eYa
For a small summary:
So basically, section 941 states that the only reason someone can't own a gun is if they're a felon. So nothing about minors there.
But then, in section 948, there's this bit about possession of a dangerous weapon by someone under 18.
However, (3) of that law has 3 exemptions.
3(a) says it does not apply if its being used for target practice with the supervision of an adult.
3(b) says it does not apply if that person is in the armed forces or NG.
3(c) says that it ONLY APPLIES is the person is in violation of section 941.28, 29.3043, and/or 29.593.
As a side note: I find the way this law is written weird. It's like they make this law and write it down, and then in the sub note say that it only applies in like 3 very specific circumstances. Wouldn't it make more sense to put those exceptions first? I think that's why so many people think it is illegal.
941.28 is talking about SBR's. The ar-15 he had was not an SBR so it doesn't apply.
29.304 is just further restrictions on people if they're under the age of 16, but nothing seems to apply if they're over the age of 16.
29.593 talks about the need for a hunting licence.
There's nothing saying he can't be in possession of it at the age of 17. If he was using it for hunting/target shooting, it appears that he'd need a licence and/or adult supervision (which even though he wasn't technically hunting, he did have adult supervision and I wouldn't be surprised if he had his hunting licence either).
A demonstrated need to protect one's self from violent aggression is exception. There's legal conflict on this, and they'll go to Case Law over it. We don't know if that was Kyle's AR, or if it was handed to him by someone there.
They'll argue this, but the defense can argue that there is no law (outside of open carry) where it specifically states he could not discharge a weapon in self-defense (which the case for is pretty much a slam dunk at this point) and thus demonstrated need.
Here you go! As long as it's not a sawed off, or a handgun, then it looks like he's fine
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/948/60
It is the only legitimate charge they have.
Nope. It's an illegal law. The 2nd Amendment does not impose age restrictions. They've got nothing. Plus 948.60 only applies if you are breaking a hunting regulation. The staff running the DA's office must be full of diversity hires to manage to screw this up so badly.
jesus christ, imagine if this kid gets that law thrown out on constitutional grounds. They'll be statues of him
That doesn't sound plausible. Age restrictions on carrying will be upheld by every court in the US. Unless he has a WI hunting license, I don't see how he is not in violation of the statute. Probably have to pay a fine or something.
WI allows rifles and shotguns for 16-17 due to hunting - hunting isn't stated in the law but it's the purpose.
He was hunting?
Not allowed to have dangerous weapons, which includes firearms, without being 18 or older, except there is an exception for rifles and shotguns.
Yep, only applies to pistols and short barreled rifles and shotguns. Retarded internet lawyers would have every jail in the State of Wisconsin full of 17 year olds on the first day of hunting season if their mis-reading of the statute was correct.
Most states have exemptions for hunting - they can open carry if they have a current, valid hunting license.
They're planning to prosecute him as an adult, but at the same time charge he's not old enough to possess the rifle.
Good old government.
Any criminal involved is liable to die if they try to fuck an American like that. Rightfully, obviously
If he is trialed as an adult, shouldn't the open carry at 18+ be an exception for him then?
With Valid Hunter's Safety Card. That's the Caveat.
This is an add on charge used to force a plea deal. They are often found unconstitutional because no specific law was violated on its own, it's just an attempt to run up punishment for a different law.
This. It's called "candy." They pad all these charges to make a plea deal look like a bargain, when in reality it's a railroading tactic to preserve conviction rates. Basically a baseball card stat for a lawyer. It doesn't have to be right or wrong, as long as they win. Justice is a farce and if you don't have the money to spread across the whole procedure, you are fucked.
Close family friend got tied up with the Feds. His offer was, go to court and take a chance on 30 years, or accept the plea deal of 3 months. 100% innocent, he took the deal, and the US Attorney got a scalp.
Sad but true. Prosecutor stats are for the resume and bragging rights.
Nothing to do with truth justice.
Source: lived in Chicago most of my life
So all they really have on him is a potentially unconstitutional misdemeanor? Fight that shit.
Federal Law is age 16, Wi law is 18. it's my understanding that Federal law supersedes State Law. Then again, the Constitution states - SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, which supersedes all of it.
And don't forget this wonderful gem that i'm sure will be used a lot in the coming year - Deprivation of Rights under the Color of Law -- https://www.justice.gov/crt/deprivation-rights-under-color-law
bottom line - we all have a God Given Right to Self Defense.
*Libtards are all triggered because one of the dudes got it in the head. "ooooh headshot is illegal!!" Yeah - no it isn't. Maybe in Call of Duty or GTA, but this is real life you wing nut! aaaaaarrrrrghghgh *