i just think that the commissioner should be consistent. if he is adopting a strict language interpretation

If they did not participate I dont see the problem. If not for CoVid this would be in a courtroom open to the public

then strictly interpret 948.60(3)(c)

As to criminal vs civil the burden of proof is vastly different. Criminal cases require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. But civil cases only require a preponderance of the evidence (more likely than not)

That was the point, yes.

OJ is a great example. Found not guilty in criminal court but found responsible in civil court

You have to remember, that subsection is dedicated to hunting.

is it?

This is an appeal to a technicality to writing.

Yes, if you further look through the subsection, it relates to hunting.

I haven't read the law.... but I can't imagine it is legal for a minor to possess a weapon inside city limits. I just can't imagine that being the case.

@Maw Can you quote the hunting-part?

by weapon I mean firearm

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 **or** is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. (Both of these are laws regarding hunting)

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

https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/29/viii/593

Well that does not seem to apply then

@Maw It says: "estrictions on hunting and use of firearms"

"and use"

"is not in compliance"

sort of makes you think the legislator thought it might apply broader than hunting?

This is the title of that section 29.304  Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.

very clearly doesnt apply

He wasn't hunting and he wasnt under 16 (but it appears that hunting is the key part of that )

Yes, Kyle wasn't hunting.

what would that mean in legal-english. "Hunting and use" ? That would mean "hunting OR other" here.

Does it mean "Hunting and use" in the manner: "Used while hunting"?

Im still confused @Doc .... why do you believe its a problem that counsel of the victims or their families were present? All criminal proceedings are open to the public.

Owning a short-barrelled rifle is a felony already. I don't know why on earth this statute is being interpreted to suggest that this is just an extra criminal charge for someone that owns an SBR.

Yeah... I see what you are saying on the "other use issue" seems to imply something other than hunting. Oddly worded law

@JD~Jordan Scroll up, it was very well explained by @Neph (Nec) / Krystaps (War)

It is in conflict with the presumption of innocence.

I dont see it but whatever

And you commonly see in court cases here council for the presumed victim to act as co-prosecutor.

Now, not being in compliance with hunting laws (which requires you to be, you know, hunting) means that the under 18 rule applies.

What is in conflict with the presumption of innocence?

@Maw Ya, I saw that now. The entire law is a hunting law.

This is the argument, and it's a very persuasive argument, far more persuasive that (2)(a) means literally nothing in the statute.

@JD~Jordan Claiming a victim.

These things have to be public. Speedy and PUBLIC trial is what our Constitution says. So long as they did not participate there is no issue.

The STATE - the prosecutor is claiming there are victims