u can have ur opinion, but the law is clearly written, albeit a bit confusing for the average person

My dude, I study law all the time. The argument from the prosecutor makes lots more sense.

29.304 literally says... Restrictions on possession or control of a firearm, its not just for hunting

Ah yes, we ignore the bits about it being about hunting and target practice.

The mental pretzel in the works.

Discord is dying at the moment.

its also for that sure, but the law is clearly written

It's literally for that specifically. lol

It states it numerous times in the statute.

29.304  Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age. nothing there even for 16 and 17 year olds, the whole law doesnt even apply to those over 16

Sort of done arguing this though.

I am 98% sure that charge is valid and it may stick. But given that I think the murder charges will drop, they will likely drop the misdemeanor anyway.

Bro

it's about hunting.

It's in the context of hunting.

its not a crime to possess a rifle or shotgun age 16+ in Wisconsin, its not about hunting

There are other hunting rules and regulations for the general populace.

It's 100% about hunting, good luck taking that defense to court where it's proven to fail multiple times already.

the law omits 16-17 year olds anyways lol

show me caselaw, u wont find it

they use to give people here disorderly conducts for open carrying, before we had CCW, a charge does not make it a crime

Again, we'll see. :)

i know gun laws, we will see if he gets convicted for murder, i doubt it

pretty clear self defense, but if he was violating curfew it could become an issue idk

Again, don't think he'll get convicted of murder, and they will likely drop all charges if his murder charges are dismissed.

the only thing he was doing that was illegal was a curfew violation.. some said he had permission to be at the business but idk about that

im not on the jury but it sure looked like self defense

@Maw How does the american law-hierarchy work?

in this case I mean.

According to the "child law" you just quoted a 17-y-o. cant have a firearm. According to the...what was it...hunting laws, he/she can.

as the first one does not have the exceptions of the latter written into it (which is the norm here), is that solved by hierarchy?

or context?

the statute has different sections, one is for hunting , the other is for possession or control of a firearm, in any case 16-17yr olds are totally omitted from the statute

nope. different laws.

or....you call it "chapters" I think.

the law in Wisconsin is you can possess a rifle or shotgun (not a SBS), if you are 16+, 14-16 if you have passed hunters safety, thats the training requirement for CCW here also

sub-sections

@Ghostdog not my question

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/29/iv/304/3/b

I was asking about the hierarchy of Wisconsin law. How it operates.

its done by omission