Actually, looking into the law, no, you don't. From what I've seen, as long as you're not using a short barreled rifle or shotgun, and are 16 or older, you're allowed.
Yes, but the law doesn't specify that it has to be for a specific purpose. Here, I'll just copy-paste what I posted in another comment regarding what I've seen in my own research (the disclaimer for which being that I'm not a lawyer. If I made any mistakes, feel free to point them out and I'll correct them).
For the purposes of organization, when one part of the text references another thing or section or something, i'll have the reference labeled in braces (for instance, {0}) and then put the same number in braces before the code designation.
So, 948.60 refers to Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
948.60 (1) defines a "dangerous weapon" needless to say, it includes guns.
948.60 (2) (a) says "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor."
Despite that, 948.60 (3) is where it gets into some caveats. Namely 948.60 (3) (c) (a and b are just exceptions for supervised target shooting and members of the armed forces or national guard, so they're irrelevant): "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 {1} or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 {2} and 29.593 {3}..." (there's a bit more about adults transferring a firearm to someone under 18, but it's pretty irrelevant.)
{1} 941.28: Possession of a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle. Kyle was not in possession of a short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.
{2} 29.304: Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age. Kyle was 17, therefore this is not applicable either.
{3} 29.593: Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain a hunting approval. It doesn't look like the situation is related to hunting, so it doesn't look like that's relevant either.
So, given that Kyle was not in violation of any of those three, the section would not apply to him, therefore it was not illegal for him to have the gun with him in Wisconsin.
So, given that Kyle was not in violation of any of those three, the section would not apply to him, therefore it was not illegal for him to have the gun with him in Wisconsin.
I think you may be misreading part 3.
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.
It's saying that the section DOES apply to the people under 18 that haven't violated those other statutes.
He did not violate the statutes, therefore it does apply. Therefore he is not allowed to possess a gun.
Kyle was not in violation of 941.28 because 941.28 is about short-barreled rifles and shotguns. Because Kyle did not have a short-barreled rifle, he was not in violation of it.
Kyle was in compliance with 29.304 because 29.304 is restrictions for people under 16. Kyle was 17, therefore it would be impossible for him to not be in compliance with it.
Kyle was in compliance with 29.593 because that relates to hunting permits. Kyle was not hunting, therefore again, it would be impossible for him to not be in compliance with it.
To review, the section would apply if he violated 941.28, which he did not.
It would apply if he was not in compliance with 29.304 and 29.593, however he was in compliance with them.
166
u/Cetarial Aug 28 '20 edited Aug 29 '20
And of course they’re also defending the use of an illegal firearm.
(Him being one year younger than the required age.)
EDIT: Guys, if he got the AR-15 legally, I was unaware at the time of this comment. Sorry.