Wisconsin Senate Bill SB329

Wisconsin 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 6/19/25
• Refer: 6/19/25

Caption

Extreme risk protection temporary restraining orders and injunctions, making an appropriation, and providing a penalty. (FE)

Impact

If enacted, SB329 will affect existing state laws regarding firearm ownership and public safety measures. It amends the current statutes to incorporate the procedures for extreme risk protection orders, potentially leading to significant shifts in how firearm-related risks are assessed and managed. The bill also delineates penalties for violations of these protective orders. Supporters believe that ERPOs can provide crucial support in preventing tragedies involving firearms, while enhancing mechanisms to safeguard vulnerable populations from potential threats.

Summary

SB329 proposes the implementation of extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs) within the state's legal framework. These orders enable law enforcement or family members to petition for a temporary restraining order against individuals who may pose a danger to themselves or others, particularly in connection to gun ownership. Proponents argue that this bill aims to enhance public safety by allowing timely interventions in situations that could lead to gun violence or self-harm. The bill includes specific procedures for issuing these orders, which include judicial reviews and a defined time frame for enforcement.

Conclusion

The legislative discussions surrounding SB329 will continue as both supporters and opponents prepare to voice their positions. The effectiveness of such bills in the face of persistent gun violence remains to be critically evaluated, alongside the constitutional implications relating to individual rights. The bill exemplifies the ongoing struggle to balance community safety with personal freedoms in the context of firearm legislation.

Contention

Notably, SB329 has faced opposition from various stakeholder groups who argue against the implications of expanded regulatory powers on individual rights. Critics express concerns that the bill could lead to wrongful accusations and the potential for misuse of protective orders, thereby infringing upon rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. The discussions around the bill have highlighted fears regarding due process and the adequacy of the safeguards provided to ensure fairness in the issuance of an ERPO. As such, the debate encompasses broader themes of public versus individual safety and rights.