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

[pamak]

A prosecutor in Wisconsin can charge anybody of any crime by filing information. That doesn’t mean that it is a valid prosecution. In this case the trial court allowed all of the evidence to come out, and all of the evidence did not show that Kyle had violated any portion of that law. The prosecutors could not show any dispute a fact that would support the idea that a jury should decide whether Kyle was guilty. If in an adversarial trial, there is no dispute of material fact between the parties and one party is entitled to a certain result by operation of the law, then the Judge must grant that result.

You tried to argue that the prosecutors did not claim that Kyle was 17 years old or that he possessed a dangerous weapon. The charge by itself is a claim and proves you wrong. The fact that the prosecutors were not left to debate the issue in front of the jury (when they would have certainly supported their claims) is a result of the judge;s decision. It was not a result of an adversarial trial in which the defense disputed a material fact in and convinced the jury that Kyle was not 17 years old but was actually an adult during the shooting.

By the way, the prosecution did not need to prove that Kyle was younger than 17 years old. Again, the statutes about the 16 and 14 year old minors are about hunting and targeting practices! Just because a 17 year old minor is over 16, it does not mean that he can use these statutes to justify non-hunting activities or activities that are not related to target practice.

 

[pamak]

...

We can go over this again.


304 is

29.304  Restrictions on hunting and use of firearms by persons under 16 years of age

Kyle was 17. He cannot NOT be in compliance with this law. He is not subjected to it. He is in compliance because he is not capable of performing any act not in compliance with this law. If he is in compliance with this law he cannot be guilty of the crime. It’s as simple as this. All these diversions about your unfounded opinion, Supreme Court cases about illegal aliens fixing churches, etc are not relevant in any way.

This is plain English. The intent doesn’t matter, your opinion doesn’t matter, this is solely black letter law.

Let's go over this again:

You say, Kyle was 17. He cannot NOT be in compliance with this law. He is not subjected to it.

Correct.

Then you say,


He is in compliance because he is not capable of performing any act not in compliance with this law.

So, within two consecutive sentences you claim two opposite things. Your grammar and logic rules make somebody who can NOT comply with this law (based in your words), capable of actually complying with the law.

Does this make sense to anybody in plain English?

The most logical claim is that since this particular law does not apply to Kyle, (by your OWN words Kyle is NOT subjected to it), he cannot use the exclusions that are linked to such law for his defense of non-hunting activities.

As I said, the law was not written with Kyle in mind. This particular section of the law was written to protect 16 and younger minors who used the weapon that Kyle had for hunting and targeting purposes. It let them continue use long-barrel weapons FOR HUNTING/TARGETING PRACTICE as long as they COMPLIED with certain requirement mentioned in this particular section, such as adult supervision, etc. And even if a minor is 16 or younger, it does not mean that he can "borrow" his father's long-barrel weapon to play with his friends "cowboys vs Indians" in the streets.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

You act like i debate the age cap while my point is that this age cap is about people engaged in hunting and targeting practices.

It is irrelevant what the purpose of the Age cap is. It exists and that’s all that matters so your reading is wrong.

Let's go over this again:

You say, Kyle was 17. He cannot NOT be in compliance with this law. He is not subjected to it.

Correct.

Then you say,


He is in compliance because he is not capable of performing any act not in compliance with this law.

So, within two sentences you claim two opposite things and your grammar and logic rules make somebody who can NOT comply with this law (based in your words), capable of actually complying with the law.

Does this make sense to anybody in plain English?

The most logical claim is that since this particular law does not apply to Kyle, he could not use the exclusions that are based on such law for his defense.

As I said, the law was not written with Kyle in mind. This particular section of the law was written to protect 16 and younger minors who used the weapon that Kyle had for hunting and targeting purposes. It let them continue use long-barrel weapons as long as they COMPLIED with certain requirement mentioned in this particular section, such as adult supervision, etc.

A double negative is a positive in English, and I think in every language because it is pure operation of logic.

Yes saying Kyle is compliant because he cannot not be in compliance is a perfectly comprehensible statement. Apparently you never learned about double negatives in school.

Now your last paragraph is admitting I am right. It was written for minors 16 and younger. Kyle is therefore not subject to those restrictions. He does not require any supervision, his purpose for having the gun doesn’t matter, all that matters is the firearm is not a short one. You keep spinning your wheels trying to escape this very fact which you cannot escape. Kyle by default is compliant with 304 because of his age and therefore cannot violate it. He therefore cannot be in violation of 304 and 593 at the same time, and therefore cannot be guilty of violating this law. Which is exactly what the judge agreed to.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

You tried to argue that the prosecutors did not claim that Kyle was 17 years old or that he possessed a dangerous weapon. The charge by itself is a claim and proves you wrong. The fact that the prosecutors were not left to debate the issue in front of the jury (when they would have certainly supported their claims) is a result of the judge;s decision. It was not a result of an adversarial trial in which the defense disputed a material fact in and convinced the jury that Kyle was not 17 years old but was actually an adult during the shooting.

The judge is obligated to make such a decision. If you get arrested for driving without a valid drivers license and you do in fact have a valid drivers license and the state concedes you have a valid drivers license than there is no longer a jury question, the prosecution can’t say “well we agree he has a drivers license but let’s let the jury decide if he has one” no, if there’s no material fact dispute then the charge is a question of law.

By the way, the prosecution did not need to prove that Kyle was younger than 17 years old. Again, the statutes about the 16 and 14 year old minors are about hunting and targeting practices! Just because a 17 year old minor is over 16, it does not mean that he can use these statutes to justify non-hunting activities or activities that are not related to target practice.

Well again, that is wrong, the prosecution would have to prove either that the rifle fell into the legal category of a short barreled rifle (which ADA Krause told the judge that the state never alleged the rifle was short barelled, so the state stipulated this in a hearing) or that Kyle was 16 or under AND violated both 304 AND 593 at the same time.

But see because Kyle is 17 then 304 does not apply to him, it is irrelevant why he had the gun, there is zero pattern of facts that could ever support a claim he violated 304. Therefore he is not guilty.

Your sad argument is once again “but I don’t like the law” too bad. You’re not dictator of Wisconsin.

 

[pamak]

It is irrelevant what the purpose of the Age cap is. It exists and that’s all that matters so your reading is wrong.

A double negative is a positive in English, and I think in every language because it is pure operation of logic.

Yes saying Kyle is compliant because he cannot not be in compliance is a perfectly comprehensible statement. Apparently you never learned about double negatives in school.

Now your last paragraph is admitting I am right. It was written for minors 16 and younger. Kyle is therefore not subject to those restrictions. He does not require any supervision, his purpose for having the gun doesn’t matter, all that matters is the firearm is not a short one. You keep spinning your wheels trying to escape this very fact which you cannot escape. Kyle by default is compliant with 304 because of his age and therefore cannot violate it. He therefore cannot be in violation of 304 and 593 at the same time, and therefore cannot be guilty of violating this law. Which is exactly what the judge agreed to.

Explain the double negative. If I repeat a sentence twice do I change it to the opposite meaning? Because this is what you try to do. You repeat the same thing using different words.
He cannot NOT be in compliance with this law. He is not subjected to it.

I do not say that Kyle is or is not in compliance. I am saying that Kyle is not subjected to such law and there is no meaning in examining Kyle's compliance or not with this law. Thus Kyle cannot use this law to claim an exclusion from the penalties for possessing a dangerous weapon. And the issue is not just his different age, it is also that he is not engaged in an activity related to hunting or targeting practice.

Your "double negative" (which is not actually double negative as I explained) makes no sense. Imagine that the next Kyle is 16 years old and is engaged in an activity of playing cowboys vs Indians with his friends in the public streets using his dad's "borrowed" long-barrel rifle. Your position of "double negative" implies that
since that person is not subjected to the law restrictions for hunting, (since he is not hunting), He NOT be in compliance with this law. He is not subjected to it. So, now I have a "double negative" which means that in this case the person is in compliance with the law and thus can claim its provisions to exclude himself from the penalty's of possessing a dangerous weapon as a 16 years old unsupervised minor. Nice logic!

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Explain the double negative. If I repeat a sentence twice do I change it to the opposite meaning? Because this is what you try to do. You repeat the same thing using different words.
He cannot NOT be in compliance with this law. He is not subjected to it.

I do not say that Kyle is or is not in compliance. I am saying that Kyle is not subjected to such law and there is no meaning in examining Kyle's compliance or not with his law. Thus Kyle he cannot use this law to claim an exclusion. And the issue is not just his different age, it is also that he is not engaged in an activity related to hunting or targeting practice.

Your "double negative" (which is not actually double negative as I explained) makes no sense. Imagine that the next Kyle is 16 years old and is engaged in an activity of playing cowboys vs Indians with his friends in the public streets using his dad's "borrowed" long-barrel rifle. Your position of "double negative" implies that
since that person is not subjected to the law restrictions for hunting, (since he is not hunting), He NOT be in compliance with this law. He is not subjected to it. So, now I have a double negative which means that in this case the person is in compliance with the law and thus can claim its provisions to exclude himself from the penalty's of possessing a dangerous weapon as a 16 years old unsupervised minor. Nice logic!

You’re not as clever as you think you are. You might not even be as clever as Krause who lost this very argument.

 

[pamak]

You’re not as clever as you think you are. You might not even be as clever as Krause who lost this very argument.

I do not know this Krause.

Notice that I posted a challenge to you in the form of a scenario where a 16 year old minor possesses a long-barrel weapon in a public street while he participates in a non-hunting activity (and obviously public streets are not used for hunting or targeting practice ). If you are confident about your logic, you can explain how I have misrepresented your "double negative". at the end of my post

...since that person is not subjected to the law restrictions for hunting, (since he is not hunting), He NOT be in compliance with this law. He is not subjected to it. So, now I have a double negative which means that in this case the person is in compliance with the law and thus can claim its provisions to exclude himself from the penalty's of possessing a dangerous weapon as a 16 years old unsupervised minor.

 

[weaver2]

Things don't suddenly become illegal just because you don't like it. It means that other seventeen year olds in Wisconsin can open carry a rifle in compliance with the law.

Rittenhouse has clearly demonstrated that a 17 year old with a loaded weapon is not able to recognize or understand a dangerous situation and uses his weapon as his first option. How do you fell about 17 year olds open carrying of loaded guns roaming city streets during civil unrest.

 

[pamak]

Al

Rittenhouse has clearly demonstrated that a 17 year old with a loaded weapon is not able to recognize or understand a dangerous situation and uses his weapon as his first option. How do you fell about 17 year olds open carrying of loaded guns roaming city streets during civil unrest.

Notice how the "textualists" supposedly members here invent "double negatives" which do not exist in the actual text to claim that Rittenhouse who was not using his weapon for hunting complied with a law that was written for hunting related activities.

The textual interpretation which says that Kyle did not comply with the hunting statutes is not even contemplated by these "textualists"

 

[Metric Mouse]

Yes, it is his job and my position is that I disagree with his decision and philosophy of interpreting the law. This is why I posted the link earlier to show that even legal scholars disagree about how judges should interpreter statutes

Fairness in statutory interpretation: Text, purpose or intention?

There is a persistent debate in legal theory concerning the correct way of approaching written statutes. The parties can roughly be divided into textualists, who think that the law-applier should stick to the text of the statute, and purposivists (or intentionalists), who either think that the...

www.degruyter.com

It seems the judge did not want to make an interpretation that gives the law a reasonable purpose and chose instead to count only on the text that makes the purpose of the law absurd since based on such narrow (textual) interpretation, a minor cannot possess a dangerous weapon like a brass knuckle but it can posses a weapon like the one Kyle had.

The point of the law was not to deny people the right to possess long guns. If it was, they text would say so.

 

[justabubba]

The judge said the law was unclear and made his own interpretation. It appears to many that he ignored quite a lot of history and common sense.

the judge ruled on the law as it was written
judges follow the law
legislators make the law

The objective of 948.60 is to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands people under the age of 18

948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1)  In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
(2)(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.

Then come all the exceptions into none of which does Rittenhouse fit neatly. But by using older hunting regulation for minors one can force a fit to say he had a legal right to wander city streets during a riot with an armed weapon held at ready playing policeman. To many this doesn't sound like a very sensible interpretation of a law meant to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of people under 18 yo. But everybody has their own opinion.

Here's a thought: If ,in Kenosha, WI, a kid under the age of 18 has a legal right to carry a loaded weapon on the city streets during a riot what does this mean for other riots and other armed kids?

if that was the objective, then the law would not have been worded as it was, offering a loophole for those in rittenhouse's situation

that the legislature has not since closed that loophole with revised text, thus updating the law, is an indication the legislators did not have the "objective" you attributed to them

it would then appear you are speaking for yourself and not those who are charged with writing the law

 

[rahl]

I don’t care where you claim to cite it. I have not seen you sign it, and you’re not signing it now and the reason you’re not signing it now is because you are being dishonest as to what it says.

I don’t care if you’ve seen it or not.

You want to sound like you know the law while not truthfully stating the provisions.

I’ve already done so in about 9 other threads. Others have cited the statute in this thread. I don’t need to keep reciting it.

Because there’s only one rational way to read it and that’s against the case you’re making.

No it isn’t.

 

[rahl]

A lot of people on this board made this mistake and I'm confused as to whether they heard this from somewhere in the media who got it wrong or if they are unable to comprehend the language of the statute.

It’s in crystal clear English in the statute. Only 3 exceptions listed.

Did you come to this conclusion on your own or did you read this somewhere?

The words of the statute.

And if you read it elsewhere I'd appreciate a link so I can read the article and laugh at the author.

The statute has been linked to several times

 

[pamak]

.

The point of the law was not to deny people the right to possess long guns. If it was, they text would say so.

Bur it DOES say so as a result of the law's definition of dangerous weapons which according to the law includes ANY FIREARM loaded or unloaded!

948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1)  In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon,

There is no need to enumerate all types of guns when you have such definition!

The people who supposedly read only the text, try to argue that this definition does not apply to Kyle's (long-barrel) weapon because the law says in the last subparagraph that

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.

But of course, the above text does not say that Kyle is in compliance of 29.304 and 29.593. This is THEIR claim which they make by ignoring the purpose of the law and the purpose of the last subsection which provides protection to minors under 18 years old who use their dangerous weapon for hunting while they comply with 29.304 and 29.503 which deal with hunting requirements. If one wants to make a reasonable interpretation of the law, he can see that up until the last subsection, it deals with penalties for minors using dangerous weapons and provides some exceptions which are NOT related to bunting. The last subparagraph provides additional exceptions for people engaged in hunting activities.

 

[pamak]

The people here who try to claim that Kyle is in compliance with a law that addresses hunting requirements ( 29.304 and 29.593.) ALSO depart from the text. They argue that because Kyle was not engaged in a hunting activity, he could not violate a law that addresses hunting requirements . Thus, they arrive at a conclusion that Kyle complies with the law about hunting requirements. Of course, such conclusion is theirs and is not mentioned anywhere in the text. but such detail does not prevent them from claiming that they supposedly closely follow the text, and do not count on interpretations, LOL

 

[pamak]

the judge ruled on the law as it was written
judges follow the law
legislators make the law

if that was the objective, then the law would not have been worded as it was, offering a loophole for those in rittenhouse's situation

that the legislature has not since closed that loophole with revised text, thus updating the law, is an indication the legislators did not have the "objective" you attributed to them

it would then appear you are speaking for yourself and not those who are charged with writing the law

The law as it is written makes ANY firearm a dangerous weapon which makes KYle at the time of the shooting a minor in possession of a dangerous weapon

 

[justabubba]

The law as it is written makes ANY firearm a dangerous weapon which makes KYle at the time of the shooting a minor in possession of a dangerous weapon

the judge assigned to this case disagrees

thanks for playing

 

[Metric Mouse]

.


Bur it DOES say so as a result of the law's definition of dangerous weapons which according to the law includes ANY FIREARM loaded or unloaded!

948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.
(1)  In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon,

There is no need to enumerate all types of guns when you have such definition!

The people who supposedly read only the text, try to argue that this definition does not apply to Kyle's (long-barrel) weapon because the law says in the last subparagraph that

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.

But of course, the above text does not say that Kyle is in compliance of 29.304 and 29.593. This is THEIR claim which they make by ignoring the purpose of the law and the purpose of the last subsection which provides protection to minors under 18 years old who use their dangerous weapon for hunting while they comply with 29.304 and 29.503 which deal with hunting requirements. If one wants to make a reasonable interpretation of the law, he can see that up until the last subsection, it deals with penalties for minors using dangerous weapons and provides some exceptions which are NOT related to bunting. The last subparagraph provides additional exceptions for people engaged in hunting activities.

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

Clearly says that Kyle was not in violation. No wonder this was thrown out.

 

[Metric Mouse]

The people here who try to claim that Kyle is in compliance with a law that addresses hunting requirements ( 29.304 and 29.593.) ALSO depart from the text. They argue that because Kyle was not engaged in a hunting activity, he could not violate a law that addresses hunting requirements . Thus, they arrive at a conclusion that Kyle complies with the law about hunting requirements. Of course, such conclusion is theirs and is not mentioned anywhere in the text. but such detail does not prevent them from claiming that they supposedly closely follow the text, and do not count on interpretations, LOL

No, they look at this section of the law:

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

And say that he was in compliance with those statutes, and therefore specifically the law does not apply to him.

 

[Metric Mouse]

Yes, he was.

I’ve read it and cited it in about a dozen threads over the past year.

948.60 (3) Says:
(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

So Kyle was specifically exempted from the law. Perfectly legal.

 

[rahl]

948.60 (3) Says:
(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

So Kyle was specifically exempted from the law. Perfectly legal.

Nope. This is talking about if he was hunting, and didn’t have a valid license.

The statute is crystal clear in that it only provides 3 exceptions to the underage possession. Hunting, active duty military, or under direct adult supervision. That is it. 3c adds the requirement of a valid hunting license, if said minor is hunting.

 

[Metric Mouse]

Nope. This is talking about if he was hunting, and didn’t have a valid license.

The statute is crystal clear in that it only provides 3 exceptions to the underage possession. Hunting, active duty military, or under direct adult supervision. That is it. 3c adds the requirement of a valid hunting license, if said minor is hunting.

I just quoted 3 c- it does not mention a license. It says:
(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 says no short barreled rifles, and 29.304 and 29.593 cover hunters 16 and under....

Kyle was neither, therefore the law does not apply. Clearly, the law says it does not apply unless 16 or under, or having an sbs.

 

[rahl]

I just quoted 3 c- it does not mention a license. It says:
(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 says no short barreled rifles, and 29.304 and 29.593 cover hunters 16 and under....

Kyle was neither, therefore the law does not apply. Clearly, the law says it does not apply unless 16 or under, or having an sbs.

Lol

29.593  Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval.
(1) 
(a) Except as provided under subs. (2), (2m) and (3), and s. 29.592 (1), no person born on or after January 1, 1973, may obtain any approval authorizing hunting unless the person is issued a certificate of accomplishment under s. 29.591.
(b) A certificate of accomplishment issued to a person for successfully completing the course under the bow hunter education program only authorizes the person to obtain a resident archer hunting license, a nonresident archer hunting license, a resident crossbow hunting license, or a nonresident crossbow hunting license.
(2) A person who has a certificate, license, or other evidence that is satisfactory to the department indicating that he or she has successfully completed in another state, country, or province a hunter education course recognized by the department may obtain an approval authorizing hunting.
(2m) A person who has a certificate, license, or other evidence that is satisfactory to the department indicating that he or she has successfully completed in another state, country, or province a bow hunter education course recognized by the department may obtain an archer hunting license or crossbow hunting license.
(3) A person who successfully completes basic training in the U.S. armed forces, reserves or national guard may obtain an approval authorizing hunting.
(4) A person who is subject to sub. (1) may prove compliance with sub. (1) when submitting an application for an approval authorizing hunting by presenting any of the following:
(a) His or her certificate of accomplishment issued under s. 29.591.
(b) An approval authorizing hunting that was issued to him or her under this chapter within 365 days before submitting the application.
(c) An approval authorizing hunting that was issued to him or her under this chapter for a hunting season that ended within 365 days before submitting the application.
History: 1983 a. 420; 1991 a. 254; 1997 a. 27, 197; 1997 a. 248 ss. 427 to 430; Stats. 1997 s. 29.593; 1999 a. 32; 2005 a. 289; 2009 a. 39; 2013 a. 61.

3C deals with NFA items, and hunting without a license.

 

[Metric Mouse]

Lol

29.593  Requirement for certificate of accomplishment to obtain hunting approval.
(1) 
(a) Except as provided under subs. (2), (2m) and (3), and s. 29.592 (1), no person born on or after January 1, 1973, may obtain any approval authorizing hunting unless the person is issued a certificate of accomplishment under s. 29.591.
(b) A certificate of accomplishment issued to a person for successfully completing the course under the bow hunter education program only authorizes the person to obtain a resident archer hunting license, a nonresident archer hunting license, a resident crossbow hunting license, or a nonresident crossbow hunting license.
(2) A person who has a certificate, license, or other evidence that is satisfactory to the department indicating that he or she has successfully completed in another state, country, or province a hunter education course recognized by the department may obtain an approval authorizing hunting.
(2m) A person who has a certificate, license, or other evidence that is satisfactory to the department indicating that he or she has successfully completed in another state, country, or province a bow hunter education course recognized by the department may obtain an archer hunting license or crossbow hunting license.
(3) A person who successfully completes basic training in the U.S. armed forces, reserves or national guard may obtain an approval authorizing hunting.
(4) A person who is subject to sub. (1) may prove compliance with sub. (1) when submitting an application for an approval authorizing hunting by presenting any of the following:
(a) His or her certificate of accomplishment issued under s. 29.591.
(b) An approval authorizing hunting that was issued to him or her under this chapter within 365 days before submitting the application.
(c) An approval authorizing hunting that was issued to him or her under this chapter for a hunting season that ended within 365 days before submitting the application.
History: 1983 a. 420; 1991 a. 254; 1997 a. 27, 197; 1997 a. 248 ss. 427 to 430; Stats. 1997 s. 29.593; 1999 a. 32; 2005 a. 289; 2009 a. 39; 2013 a. 61.

3C deals with NFA items, and hunting without a license.

Yes; and Kyle was not hunting, not 16 or under, nor did he have an NFA item; the law does not apply to him. That's what 948.60 (3) c says. Pretty clear.

 

[GummyVitamins]

The words of the statute.

Which words have you confused? I'd be happy to help explain what they mean.