An Act to amend 165.63 (3), 165.63 (4) (d), 175.35 (1) (at), 175.60 (9g) (a) 2., 175.60 (11) (a) 2. f., 801.58 (2m), 813.06, 813.126 (1), 813.127, 813.128 (2g) (b) and 941.29 (1m) (f); to create 16.316, 20.505 (1) (ft), 801.50 (5sb) and 813.124 of the statutes; Relating to: extreme risk protection temporary restraining orders and injunctions, making an appropriation, and providing a penalty. (FE)
AB319 creates a new Wisconsin “extreme risk protection” process that would allow a law enforcement officer or a family or household member to petition a circuit court for an order temporarily or permanently barring a person from possessing firearms. The petition must allege facts showing the respondent is substantially likely to injure themself or another person if allowed to possess a firearm. If the petitioner requests a temporary restraining order, the court must act on an expedited basis and may issue an ex parte TRO if it finds immediate and present danger and a substantial likelihood the injunction will later be granted. A TRO would last until a hearing on the injunction, which must occur within 14 days.
At the hearing, the court may issue an extreme risk protection injunction for up to one year, renewable upon petition, if the court finds by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent is substantially likely to injure themself or another person if they possess a firearm. The bill also allows a respondent to seek to vacate the injunction once during each injunction period by showing they are no longer substantially likely to cause harm. Firearms surrendered under a TRO or injunction could not be returned until the order expires or is vacated and the person is otherwise legally eligible to possess firearms. The bill also creates a petition process for the return of firearms, addresses ownership disputes over surrendered firearms, and requires notice that the order may receive full faith and credit in other jurisdictions.
The bill would amend multiple statutes governing firearm prohibitions, background checks, court records, venue, injunction procedures, and penalties. It adds the new extreme risk protection order to the list of firearm-disqualifying orders under Wisconsin’s felon-in-possession law, requires DOJ and law enforcement record systems to track these orders, and makes them visible in firearms restrictions record searches and handgun background checks. It also exempts these proceedings from the usual bond requirement for injunction actions, sets venue rules, and allows combined actions with domestic abuse, child abuse, and harassment petitions. In addition, it creates a grant program in the Department of Administration to train law enforcement on identifying high-risk individuals and filing petitions, with $700,000 appropriated in each of two fiscal years.
The bill’s general policy direction is preventive and public-safety oriented, focusing on suicide prevention and the prevention of firearm-related harm by creating a civil court mechanism to remove guns from individuals deemed at imminent risk. Because the bill text and available context show no committee testimony or recorded votes, there is no documented floor or committee sentiment to summarize beyond the bill’s introduction and referral. The bill ultimately failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1.
The main points of contention inherent in the bill are likely to be the balance between public safety and individual rights, the use of ex parte temporary restraining orders, and the standard for determining whether someone is “substantially likely” to injure themself or another. The bill attempts to address misuse concerns by making knowingly false petitions false swearing, a Class H felony, while supporters would likely emphasize the emergency nature of the remedy and the training grants for law enforcement. Opponents would likely focus on due process, the firearm surrender requirement, and the expansion of firearm prohibitions based on civil findings rather than criminal convictions.
AB319 would create a new chapter 813.124 procedure for extreme risk protection temporary restraining orders and injunctions, and it would integrate those orders into Wisconsin’s firearm-prohibition, background-check, and law-enforcement information systems. It would also create a new state grant appropriation for law-enforcement training, add penalties for violating the new firearm prohibition, and make false petitions punishable as false swearing. The bill would affect respondents subject to the orders, family or household members who may petition, law enforcement agencies, circuit courts, firearms dealers, and DOJ recordkeeping and background-check functions.
The available record shows no committee transcript or vote history, so there is no direct evidence of debate or negotiated amendments in the provided materials. Based on the bill’s structure, the measure is framed as a public-safety and crisis-intervention tool, with detailed procedures intended to support emergency removal of firearms from high-risk individuals and to train law enforcement in using the process. The bill’s failure to pass indicates it did not complete the legislative process, but the context provided does not show whether that was due to substantive opposition, scheduling, or broader procedural reasons.
The likely central controversy is whether the bill strikes the right balance between preventing imminent harm and protecting due process and Second Amendment rights. Supporters would likely argue that the bill is narrowly targeted, requires judicial findings, and includes penalties for false petitions; they may also support the law-enforcement training grants. Critics would likely object to the ex parte TRO process, the broad discretion to determine dangerousness, the mandatory firearm surrender requirements, and the possibility that family or household members can initiate proceedings without a criminal conviction. The bill’s use of civil findings to trigger firearm disqualification, rather than relying solely on criminal adjudications, is the core legal and policy tension.