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.
Nothing I can see in the language indicates borrowing the requirements from 29.593 for a separate purpose under 948.60. Only compliance with 29.593 itself, as referenced.
29.593 is just setting requirements as part of the Hunter safety "education"
29.591 "Hunter education program" and training certificate required of anyone 16 or older to obtain a hunting license and wasn't "grandfathered in" when that law was created.
948.60(3)(c) itself directly references 29.593 in the first sentence as one of two measures of who gets exempted from the long gun prohibition. That's literally legal copypasta shortcut instantly hijacking the referenced section to that separate purpose. Or at least intending to.
I'm not sure how the prosecution would present this cross-purposed boolean conundrum of a technical misdemeanor before a jury, I kind of doubt they will even try in this case. With Kyle's heroic EMT/Lifeguard/Firefighter/Police Cadet background exceeding the spirit of this unconstitutional restriction if not the letter, and a pitbull lawyer I think it's a hard sell.
If I'm understanding right, you're interpreting 948.60(3)(c) as saying "Meeting the qualifications defined for getting hunting approval under 29.593 is one of the conditions for exemption from 948.60"?
But if a section's being referenced, it's being referenced in its entirety, no? As in the qualifications established by the section and the object of them (obtaining hunting approval)? I think it's more than a hard sell to argue they're taking just the qualifications and using them for a separate purpose, when this intention and the the purpose itself isn't defined or even being indicated at all. It's downright impossible without going full "living document" on the lawbook.
It'd be a different story if the qualifications and the object were defined in separate subsections and 948.60 directly referenced the qualifications (i.e. "does not meet qualifications as defined in blahblahblah), but as it's written 29.593 is explicitly about the attainment of hunting approval and 948.60 necessitates nothing more than compliance.
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.
Where are you getting that? Prior cases?
Nothing I can see in the language indicates borrowing the requirements from 29.593 for a separate purpose under 948.60. Only compliance with 29.593 itself, as referenced.
How would the prosecution argue that?
29.593 is just setting requirements as part of the Hunter safety "education" 29.591 "Hunter education program" and training certificate required of anyone 16 or older to obtain a hunting license and wasn't "grandfathered in" when that law was created.
948.60(3)(c) itself directly references 29.593 in the first sentence as one of two measures of who gets exempted from the long gun prohibition. That's literally legal copypasta shortcut instantly hijacking the referenced section to that separate purpose. Or at least intending to.
I'm not sure how the prosecution would present this cross-purposed boolean conundrum of a technical misdemeanor before a jury, I kind of doubt they will even try in this case. With Kyle's heroic EMT/Lifeguard/Firefighter/Police Cadet background exceeding the spirit of this unconstitutional restriction if not the letter, and a pitbull lawyer I think it's a hard sell.
If I'm understanding right, you're interpreting 948.60(3)(c) as saying "Meeting the qualifications defined for getting hunting approval under 29.593 is one of the conditions for exemption from 948.60"?
But if a section's being referenced, it's being referenced in its entirety, no? As in the qualifications established by the section and the object of them (obtaining hunting approval)? I think it's more than a hard sell to argue they're taking just the qualifications and using them for a separate purpose, when this intention and the the purpose itself isn't defined or even being indicated at all. It's downright impossible without going full "living document" on the lawbook.
It'd be a different story if the qualifications and the object were defined in separate subsections and 948.60 directly referenced the qualifications (i.e. "does not meet qualifications as defined in blahblahblah), but as it's written 29.593 is explicitly about the attainment of hunting approval and 948.60 necessitates nothing more than compliance.