Darn, lawful purposes. That spoils my plan to use children as cheap evil minions.(c) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this section that the child's access to the firearm:
(1) was supervised by a person older than 18 years of age and was for hunting, sporting, or other lawful purposes;
Now this can lead to interesting interpretations; the actor, not the child, so you're apparently excused if you were out watering the tomatoes, tending the geraniums, or engaging in some in-closet hydroponics, but not while you're, say, rushing your spouse to the emergency room.(4) occurred during a time when the actor was engaged in an agricultural
enterprise.
I had always misread it as the child being engaged in the activity, which made a lot more sense. (Letting 16-year-old-and-quite-responsible Junior take a gun with him while he's plowing the back 40, for example)
[Edited to add:] The wording is also not quite clear on what gaining access to a readily dischargeable firearm would be; if it was left unloaded, it doesn't meet the definition given of readily dischargeable, even if the ammunition is also readily available. The way it is written, the kid could be found holding an empty gun in one hand, and a box of ammo for it in the other, and no violation has been comitted. Does it then become a crime when the child loads the gun, or not, since the gun was not readily dischargeable when the actor failed to secure it?