Works that way in my state. Neighboring states and my state work together. Also the laws are about the same.
Glad you could lend some reality to this SneakySFDude. Some are caught in emotionalism and mob rule. Good job, Bro.
It helps if you spend the time to read your own link. The proof you provided does not say anything about anyone over the age of 14.
Send the link.
That is not anywhere in the statue
And the relevant passage
a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.
(3)
(a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult’s supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult’s supervision.
(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.
(c) 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. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.
History: 1987 a. 332; 1991 a. 18, 139; 1993 a. 98; 1995 a. 27, 77; 1997 a. 248; 2001 a. 109; 2005 a. 163; 2011 a. 35.
Sub. (2) (b) does not set a standard for civil liability, and a violation of sub. (2) (b) does not constitute negligence per se. Logarto v. Gustafson, 998 F. Supp. 998 (1998).
This is talking and handguns not rifles. The only thing a seventeen year can’t do is purchase a rifle or handgun. They can possess a rifle not a handgun.
False. The last paragraph is the only one that has to do with rifles and shotguns.
Paragraph 1 is very clear. Then they list the exceptions.
Tell me where, or find your own link, where there is a exception for those 17 that passed a hunter course
Also, to add. A different law defines “Dangerous weapon”
Sure doesn’t sound like it is applying only to handguns or rifles to me.
- “Dangerous weapon" means any firearm, whether loaded or unloaded; any device designed as a weapon and capable of producing death or great bodily harm; any ligature or other instrumentality used on the throat, neck, nose, or mouth of another person to impede, partially or completely, breathing or circulation of blood; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); or any other device or instrumentality which, in the manner it is used or intended to be used, is calculated or likely to produce death or great bodily harm
Why not call him a thug? He had an illegal weapon and killed somebody. Guess he just from the right side of town.
3 Likes
A knife?
Sorry I’ll take the word of a man who lives and owns fire arms in WI. Texted him a while ago and he is the one saying that anyone over the age of 14 can possess a fire arm. They do not have to be going hunting or to the gun range.
The written law or “a dude I know in WI”
It’s close…
Your friend is wrong
1 Like
I couldn’t give a damn. I guessed that opportunity goodbye.
Most anti gun people don’t understand the nuance of the term.
Firearms are neither legal or illegal. they are tools. Possessing said firearms without the proper license however, is.
If he killed them in self-defense why did he flee the state.
*Co-counsel? Not fair to team up.
He went home.
2 Likes
according to the police he fled with the intent of hiding from the authorities.
but then again he walk right passed the police with the murder weapon.
My gut was right. It looked like self-defense in the video I saw, but I felt like I leaving things out of my evaluation.
Buuuut, supposing that he did provoke it, he was running away and therefore trying not to engage them any longer. How is this different than shooting at a fleeing thief, where Rittenhouse is the thief and the people throwing things at him are like the person who shoots the fleeing thief?
I thought he turned himself in.
