use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g. subreddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
subreddit:pics site:imgur.com dog
advanced search: by author, sub...
~0 users here now
It's All Politics
Kenosha Mile Challenge
submitted 3 years ago by Zednix from i.redd.it
view the rest of the comments →
[–]JeanValjean 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun - 3 years ago* (4 children)
29.304 Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.
and
29.593 Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval.
Maybe if he was in the woods looking for deer you'd have a point, but the subsections you cite do not apply because he was not hunting, at least not in any legal sense.
[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun - 3 years ago* (3 children)
That's not how laws work. Things generally aren't legal because they're expressly permitted, things are legal when there's no law against them. If the section was specific to hunting, that would be clearly stated within 948.60(3)(c).
[–]JeanValjean 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun - 3 years ago (2 children)
I highlighted the text of the pertinent subsections and they both related to hunting only. My take is a 17 yr old in Wisconsin can legally open carry as long as they are hunting. Hunting can only legally occur in legally designated hunting areas....i.e.: the woods.
Conversely, running around open carrying in the streets of downtown Kenosha, where turkeys and deer are few and far between, not so much.
[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun - 3 years ago (1 child)
That might be your take, but it's wishful thinking. If the law said, "Any person under 18 years of age who goes hunting...", you might have a point. But the law is clearly talking about "Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon," so it applies broadly.
[–]JeanValjean 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 3 years ago* (0 children)
That might be your take, but it's wishful thinking.
Wishful thinking is that the DA in this case somehow got it wrong....because what? They are a Marxist? Because they don't subscribe to white pride worldwide? Good luck with that.
view the rest of the comments →
[–]JeanValjean 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun - (4 children)
[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun - (3 children)
[–]JeanValjean 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun - (2 children)
[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun - (1 child)
[–]JeanValjean 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (0 children)