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.

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).

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.

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 29.592.

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.

So basically (and obviously IANAL), there's nothing saying he can't be in possession of it at the age of 17 as far as I can tell. 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).

So if he's allowed to carry it just to carry it, then it seems fine.

At the point he's required to use it in self-defense, I don't see anything saying that, and I don't imagine I would find a law that says: "You have to let people murder you if you are under 18 years old".