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).
Agreed. This is what I was trying to do, get a discussion of this, and get some possible answers, because god knows the media has convicted the kid already.
And, like I've been saying - even if he's guilty of the gun charge, it's a misdemeanor. It's a side issue to the vastly more serious murder charges. Which are bullshit, no matter how you look at it - and I want to see that "medic", who is legally not allowed to own or carry any guns, in custody charged with possession.
I am a lawyer (not WI) and this statute seems incredibly poorly written.
It looks like the original wording of 3(c) was "does not apply" language (ie, they are all intended to be exceptions to the misdemeanor thing) and in 2005, they changed it to "only applies" language. I'm guessing some judge found a way to interpret this mess, but you'd need a WI state legal research tool. My bet would be that it's just a misdemeanor to possess a firearm except in certain circumstances (hunting, target shooting military service).
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.
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.
They'll use that law book selectively, to target you for insolence.
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).
Agreed. This is what I was trying to do, get a discussion of this, and get some possible answers, because god knows the media has convicted the kid already.
And, like I've been saying - even if he's guilty of the gun charge, it's a misdemeanor. It's a side issue to the vastly more serious murder charges. Which are bullshit, no matter how you look at it - and I want to see that "medic", who is legally not allowed to own or carry any guns, in custody charged with possession.
I am a lawyer (not WI) and this statute seems incredibly poorly written.
It looks like the original wording of 3(c) was "does not apply" language (ie, they are all intended to be exceptions to the misdemeanor thing) and in 2005, they changed it to "only applies" language. I'm guessing some judge found a way to interpret this mess, but you'd need a WI state legal research tool. My bet would be that it's just a misdemeanor to possess a firearm except in certain circumstances (hunting, target shooting military service).
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/2005/related/acts/163
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.
I’ve read it was a friend’s, who lives in Wisconsin.
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
Excellent. Seems the DA is just throwing charges at the kid.