The exception applies only for those "in compliance with" the the hunting law statute. Which means he had to actively be on a hunt with an adult or undergoing instruction. Or 16, 17 who have "obtained" a WI hunting license. Going armed under any other circumstances not in compliance with the hunting/practice regs means the exception no longer applies. It is a temporary and situational exception that expires. He wasn't hunting or accompanied by the "responsible adult" or licensed, so he was not "in compliance" with the exception.
948.60 section 3 exempts rifles and shotguns (that are not short barreled) from "firearms" prohibited to those under 18, IF and only IF they are "in compliance" with the hunting regs. You're right though that 29.593 cited in section 3 wouldn't mean they have to have the actual hunting approval (license), just that they meet one of the requirements to obtain one. Unfortunately the likely out-of-state qualifications Kyle might have seem kind of discretionary as to their acceptance... So 16-17 year olds have to be "in compliance" with eligibility requirements for obtaining a hunting license for the long gun exception to apply.
Maybe Kyle might meet requirements, and his lawyer can certainly stretch that possibility after the fact, but he's certainly not explicitly "in compliance" with what we know. It's safe to say the law, infringement it may be, is certainly intended to prohibit non-hunters under 18 from open carry.
No 16-17 year olds need to be "in compliance with" 29.593 to gain the section 3 long gun exemption. Kyle needs to have met the requirements (basically some sort of training) to obtain WI hunting approval(license), if not the license itself to get out of 948.60. No compliance with 3c, no exemption.
In my state the DEC law is incorporated into the CPL - for instance the ban on loaded shotguns and rifles in a car is only written in the hunting admin law but enforced in cities where no hunting even exists.
Yeah, you've a vice versa of this case where a loophole was added by republicans for supervised or qualified young shooters to be exempted from a democrat infringement. In your example the democrats salted your hunting laws with poison pills like a loaded gun in car ban that can be exploited elsewhere. That's what passes for "compromise".
948.60 section 3c "This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if.. (it is short barreled) ..or not in compliance with ss. 29.304(under 16 supervised hunting/practice) and 29.593 (meets requirement to obtain hunters license)."
So anyone 16-17 has to meet 29.593 requirement (compliance) to gain section 3c exemption of long barreled rifles and shotguns from the 948.60(2a) under 18 firearm prohibition.
question: If it's about needing to have a certain proof of eligibility to obtain hunting approval, but you're not hunting in the first place or trying to obtain approval, then how are you not in compliance?
It's just that the lawmakers borrowed the requirements from the hunting license regulation as a litmus test for which youths they consider "trustworthy" enough to carry long guns around unsupervised. Those license requirements for hunters as young as 16 were already hashed out between democrats and republicans and well established, and it saved fighting over a new and conflicting measure of training for this statute. It's not what whether the kids want to go hunting, it's just where the lawmakers chose to draw a line on who gets their rights restricted. The democrats just want to restrict everyone under 18 completely of course, and the Republicans met them in the middle on burning the constitution by only really protecting prospective young hunters with the same requirements they'd have to meed anyway for licensing.
So this law is written that if they fullfill the same prerequisites that they would if they wanted to obtain hunting approval - not that they have to actually get the license - then they get exempted and can carry long guns off private property unsupervised.
The exception applies only for those "in compliance with" the the hunting law statute. Which means he had to actively be on a hunt with an adult or undergoing instruction. Or 16, 17 who have "obtained" a WI hunting license. Going armed under any other circumstances not in compliance with the hunting/practice regs means the exception no longer applies. It is a temporary and situational exception that expires. He wasn't hunting or accompanied by the "responsible adult" or licensed, so he was not "in compliance" with the exception.
Don't downvote the ignorant, educate them.
To the commenter: read it again.
There are two exceptions, 29.304:
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/29/iv/304
and 29.593:
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/29/viii/593
29.304 only applies to people under age 16. But note that it contains clauses for both:
Restrictions on possession or control of a firearm
Restrictions on hunting
Now, go look at 29.593. It only contains:
Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval.
For age 16 and 17, there are no restrictions on possession or control of a firearm. It only requires the certificate for hunting.
Where did you read that in 29.593?
https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/29/viii/593
948.60 section 3 exempts rifles and shotguns (that are not short barreled) from "firearms" prohibited to those under 18, IF and only IF they are "in compliance" with the hunting regs. You're right though that 29.593 cited in section 3 wouldn't mean they have to have the actual hunting approval (license), just that they meet one of the requirements to obtain one. Unfortunately the likely out-of-state qualifications Kyle might have seem kind of discretionary as to their acceptance... So 16-17 year olds have to be "in compliance" with eligibility requirements for obtaining a hunting license for the long gun exception to apply.
Maybe Kyle might meet requirements, and his lawyer can certainly stretch that possibility after the fact, but he's certainly not explicitly "in compliance" with what we know. It's safe to say the law, infringement it may be, is certainly intended to prohibit non-hunters under 18 from open carry.
Go to 3c. The firearms thing under 3a won't need to apply because merely hitting 16 gets Kyle out of 948.60
No 16-17 year olds need to be "in compliance with" 29.593 to gain the section 3 long gun exemption. Kyle needs to have met the requirements (basically some sort of training) to obtain WI hunting approval(license), if not the license itself to get out of 948.60. No compliance with 3c, no exemption.
In my state the DEC law is incorporated into the CPL - for instance the ban on loaded shotguns and rifles in a car is only written in the hunting admin law but enforced in cities where no hunting even exists.
Yeah, you've a vice versa of this case where a loophole was added by republicans for supervised or qualified young shooters to be exempted from a democrat infringement. In your example the democrats salted your hunting laws with poison pills like a loaded gun in car ban that can be exploited elsewhere. That's what passes for "compromise".
948.60 section 3c "This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if.. (it is short barreled) ..or not in compliance with ss. 29.304(under 16 supervised hunting/practice) and 29.593 (meets requirement to obtain hunters license)."
So anyone 16-17 has to meet 29.593 requirement (compliance) to gain section 3c exemption of long barreled rifles and shotguns from the 948.60(2a) under 18 firearm prohibition.
question: If it's about needing to have a certain proof of eligibility to obtain hunting approval, but you're not hunting in the first place or trying to obtain approval, then how are you not in compliance?
It's just that the lawmakers borrowed the requirements from the hunting license regulation as a litmus test for which youths they consider "trustworthy" enough to carry long guns around unsupervised. Those license requirements for hunters as young as 16 were already hashed out between democrats and republicans and well established, and it saved fighting over a new and conflicting measure of training for this statute. It's not what whether the kids want to go hunting, it's just where the lawmakers chose to draw a line on who gets their rights restricted. The democrats just want to restrict everyone under 18 completely of course, and the Republicans met them in the middle on burning the constitution by only really protecting prospective young hunters with the same requirements they'd have to meed anyway for licensing.
So this law is written that if they fullfill the same prerequisites that they would if they wanted to obtain hunting approval - not that they have to actually get the license - then they get exempted and can carry long guns off private property unsupervised.