I dont know if you are being dishonest, so ill humor you. 948.60 was originally intended as amendment to allow for hunting. Thats why shortbarrels werent allowed. I would say common sense....did you think they intended the law for children to go to riots?
Read the exceptions under 948.60 (3)(c). That's the exception that allowed Kyle to legally possess a long-barreled rifle. A SBR would've been illegal. The prosecution agreed & conceded.
So im guessing ur fine with Trump being convicted of rape in the the EJC case. He was found guilty by his peers and the judge on case law. He penetrated her vagina with his fingers against her will. Proven. Convicted. 9 jurors unanimously convicted him..
Lol. Despite all the sources I've posted, you still believe that Kyle wasn't legally armed. Why would I get into a political debate with you? You're not interested in an honest discussion. That much is obvious.
No he was legally armed according to the law. He should not have been armed. The case law was written for hunting, not for riots. Sure its poorly worded, but it is a loophole and you damn well know it. Since you are so hard core on interpretation of the law, whats your thoughts on the 2nd amend?
Except, that "loophole" was reviewed & there was an effort to modify it. That measure failed & today the law remains as originally written. Under these circumstances, we can't refer to this as a "loophole" anymore.
Yup the exception was for hunting as the writers of the legislation came out and said
No. They wanted to add that exception (3d) to include all minors. That measure failed & today the law remains as originally written.