Wisconsin Assembly Bill AB356

Wisconsin 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 7/8/25
• Refer: 7/8/25
• Failed: 3/23/26

Caption

An Act to amend 968.02 (4) and 968.07 (3); to repeal and recreate 948.55 of the statutes; Relating to: storage of a firearm in a residence if child is present and providing a penalty.

Summary

AB356 would substantially expand Wisconsin’s safe-storage requirements for firearms in homes where children are present. Under the bill, a person who lives with a child under 18, or knows a child will be present in the residence, could not store or leave a firearm in the residence unless it is secured in a locked box or locked location that a reasonable person would view as secure, or the firearm has a trigger lock engaged. The bill expressly does not apply when a person is carrying the firearm on their person. The bill also replaces the current child-access prevention law with a broader and more direct offense. Instead of focusing on a loaded firearm that a child under 14 obtains and then uses in a harmful or dangerous way, AB356 would make the unsafe storage itself a crime. A first violation would be a Class A misdemeanor, and a second or subsequent violation would be a Class I felony. In addition, the bill amends existing criminal procedure provisions so that, when the alleged violator is a parent or guardian of a child injured or killed in an accidental shooting, prosecutors may consider the impact on the parent or guardian before filing a complaint, and law enforcement must wait at least seven days before making an arrest. The bill’s impact on state law would be to broaden firearm-storage obligations, increase criminal exposure for noncompliance, and shift Wisconsin law from a reactive standard tied to a child’s actual access and injury to a preventive standard based on how firearms are stored in the home. It would repeal and recreate s. 948.55 of the statutes and make conforming changes to ss. 968.02 and 968.07. Because the bill creates a new crime and revises penalties, it could also trigger review by the Joint Review Committee on Criminal Penalties. The available context shows no recorded committee testimony or roll-call votes, so there is no documented floor-level debate in the materials provided. The bill ultimately failed to pass pursuant to Senate Joint Resolution 1. Based on the text alone, the measure appears to reflect a public-safety and child-protection approach to firearm storage, with the main policy emphasis on preventing accidental shootings involving children. The most likely points of contention are the scope of the storage mandate, the expansion of criminal liability, and the severity of the penalties. Supporters would likely view the bill as a child-safety and gun-safety measure aimed at preventing accidental shootings, while opponents could object that it criminalizes ordinary firearm ownership in the home, imposes felony consequences for storage violations, and may be seen as overbroad because it applies whenever a child is present or expected to be present in the residence.

Impact

AB356 would repeal and recreate Wisconsin’s firearm child-access prevention statute, s. 948.55, replacing the current rule that punishes reckless storage of a loaded firearm within reach of a child under 14 only after the child obtains and misuses the gun. The new law would require secure storage or trigger locks whenever a person lives with a child under 18 or knows a child will be present in the residence, and it would make violations a Class A misdemeanor for a first offense and a Class I felony for repeat offenses. It would also amend ss. 968.02 and 968.07 to add special charging and arrest timing considerations when a parent or guardian is the alleged violator in an accidental shooting involving their child.

Sentiment

No committee transcripts or votes are provided, so there is no direct record of debate or bipartisan support in the materials. The bill’s text suggests a strong child-safety and gun-safety rationale, but its failure to pass indicates it did not ultimately secure enough legislative support. Overall, the available record points to a policy that was likely supported by advocates for safer firearm storage and opposed by those concerned about criminal penalties and firearm rights.

Contention

The main controversy is the bill’s broad expansion of criminal liability for firearm storage in homes with children. Critics would likely focus on the fact that the bill applies even when no injury occurs and elevates repeat violations to a felony, while supporters would argue that secure storage is necessary to prevent accidental shootings and child access to guns. Another possible point of contention is the bill’s replacement of the current law’s narrower, harm-based trigger with a preventive storage requirement, as well as the special prosecutorial and arrest-delay provisions for parents or guardians after an accidental shooting.