cshoff
Regular Member
I agree, the other qualifiers kind of make it a moot point. However, in respect to 8 and 10, though there is a clear separation of the two subjects the phrase "any other" implies inclusion in this context.
Analyzed: The firearm is considered a weapon readily capable of lethal use and other weapons also capable of lethal use are included in the following...
Actually, in Subdivision (10), there is no inclusion at all. The statute specifically refers to a firearm, whether loaded or unloaded. It then goes on to say, in addition to the loaded/unloaded firearm, "any other weapon readily capable of lethal use". Since we all know that a unloaded firearm could hardly be considered "readily capable of lethal use", I think it's pretty safe to say that our legislators view a firearm, even in it's unloaded form, to be a completely different animal than "any other weapon readily capable of lethal use", at least as it applies to this particular statute.