• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

[W:2221][W: 821] [W:15] Rittenhouse Verdict

This is a lie

other than the explicit words of the statute stating exactly that.
Tell you what. Here's another chance. The "explicit words" of the statute. Bolded is the exception we're talking about. Underlined is the "action" described, 'possessing or is armed with a rifle or a shotun'.
1) What are the 'explicit words' in section 948.60, line (3)(c) that says this "only applies when hunting"?
2) Which of the associated statutes is he violating / not in compliance with? (noting that we're talking about a long rifle, Rittenhouse wasn't seeking a hunting permit, and he was 17.

948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(3)(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.

941.28  Possession of short-barreled shotgun or short-barreled rifle.
29.304  Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age.
29.593  Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval.
 
Tell you what. Here's another chance. The "explicit words" of the statute. Bolded is the exception we're talking about. Underlined is the "action" described, 'possessing or is armed with a rifle or a shotun'.
1) What are the 'explicit words' in section 948.60, line (3)(c) that says this "only applies when hunting"?
29.593
2) Which of the associated statutes is he violating / not in compliance with? (noting that we're talking about a long rifle, Rittenhouse wasn't seeking a hunting permit, and he was 17.
he can't comply with a section of a statute that he isn't participating in. Which is why 3c does not apply to him, and he remains precluded from possessing a firearm under 3a,b. There are 3, and ONLY 3 exceptions to underage possession of a firearm. Hunting with a valid license, under direct adult supervision while target shooting, or active duty military. That is it. Your interpretation is laughably absurd, because it completely renders the entire statute moot.
 
29.593

he can't comply with a section of a statute that he isn't participating in. Which is why 3c does not apply to him, and he remains precluded from possessing a firearm under 3a,b. There are 3, and ONLY 3 exceptions to underage possession of a firearm. Hunting with a valid license, under direct adult supervision while target shooting, or active duty military. That is it. Your interpretation is laughably absurd, because it completely renders the entire statute moot.
OK. In summary, that's a fail. Obviously, the statute doesn't say what you claim. 948.60 (3)(c) doesn't say anything about hunting. He was in compliance with (not violating) all of the referenced statutes. In plain english.

29.593 pertains to hunting education requirements for obtaining a hunting permit. He wasn't seeking a hunting permit.
29.304 doesn't apply. He was 17.
941.28 as established, the rifle did not have a short barrell.
 
OK. In summary, that's a fail.
I don’t care that you don’t like it. Your position is laughably incorrect as it literally renders the entire statute moot. I’ve shown you how and why dozens of times.
 
I don’t care that you don’t like it. Your position is laughably incorrect as it literally renders the entire statute moot. I’ve shown you how and why dozens of times.
I don't like or dislike your creative interpretation. It's incorrect based on the words. You've still not shown what words support your theory.

When you say 'my position' - it's the wording of the statute. It's why the charge was dropped against Rittenhouse, and it's why the statute hasn't been enforced against 16-17 year olds with long rifles.

And no, it doesn't 'render the entire statute moot'.
 
I don't like or dislike your creative interpretation.
I don’t have an interpretation. I have the words in the statute. They clearly list 3, and ONLY 3 exceptions to underage possession. Hunting with a valid license, adult supervised target shooting, or active duty military. That is it.
 
I don’t have an interpretation. I have the words in the statute. They clearly list 3, and ONLY 3 exceptions to underage possession. Hunting with a valid license, [see 3c] adult supervised target shooting, or active duty military. That is it.
You have, an idea of what you would like it to be. As pointed out, it doesn't match the words in the statute. You haven't provided any "words" that say otherwise.

This is beyond boring. Take care.
 
Back
Top Bottom