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 āDangerous weaponā
Sure doesnāt sound like it is applying only to handguns or rifles to me.
āDangerous 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
Sorry Iāll 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.
Most anti gun people donāt understand the nuance of the term.
Firearms are neither legal or illegal. they are tools. Possessing said firearms without the proper license however, is.
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?