What are the specific Wisconsin statutes and exceptions that governed juvenile possession of long guns in 2020?
Executive summary
Wisconsin law in 2020 made it a Class A misdemeanor for anyone under 18 to “possess or go armed with a dangerous weapon,” but it carved explicit, narrow exceptions that treated long guns (rifles and shotguns) differently for hunting, target practice, instruction and when the long gun met statutory length requirements — an arrangement that produced dispute over whether it left an unintended “long‑gun” loophole for minors [1] [2] [3]. The key statutory texts are s. 948.60 (possession by person under 18), cross‑references to s. 941.28 (short‑barreled firearm ban) and hunting statutes such as s. 29.304 and s. 29.593, plus related provisions on storage warnings and juvenile firearm restrictions [1] [4] [5] [6].
1. Core prohibition: 948.60 — “dangerous weapon” and misdemeanor penalty
Section 948.60 made clear that “any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor,” defining the baseline criminal exposure for juvenile possession and establishing the maximum penalties attached to that misdemeanor [1] [7]. Legal commentary and news reporting in 2020 repeatedly cited 948.60 when describing prosecutions or public debate about minors carrying firearms, underscoring that the statute was the principal tool prosecutors used to charge under‑18 possession cases [8] [7].
2. Explicit exceptions that create the long‑gun carve‑out
Although sweeping on its face, 948.60 also contains express exceptions: the statute “does not apply” where the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under adult supervision or “in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon” under adult supervision; and it limits application to rifles and shotguns only where the juvenile is in violation of s. 941.28 or not in compliance with hunting statutes (citing ss. 29.304 and 29.593) — in short, long guns used for hunting, supervised practice or instruction and meeting certain length/non‑shortened requirements were carved out from automatic misdemeanor exposure [1] [5] [9]. State reporting and legal analysts noted that those cross‑references effectively permitted possession of rifles and shotguns by minors in many ordinary hunting and range scenarios [2] [10].
3. Related statutory cross‑checks: 941.28 and hunting rules (29.304, 29.593)
The limited reach of 948.60 to rifles and shotguns depended on whether the firearm violated the ban on short‑barreled rifles/shotguns in s. 941.28 and whether the juvenile complied with hunting statutes like s. 29.304 (restrictions for persons under certain ages) and s. 29.593; if a juvenile complied with those hunting and length rules, the 948.60 possession prohibition did not automatically apply to long guns [1] [11] [9]. Practically, that meant hunters and students in firearm safety programs often fell into statutory exceptions, while possession of short‑barreled weapons or non‑hunting uses could trigger charges [11] [10].
4. Storage and transfer rules plus juvenile adjudication notices
Separate but related provisions governed adult responsibility and post‑adjudication restrictions: s. 948.55 required retail written warnings about leaving loaded firearms accessible to children and provided penalties for unsafe storage, signaling an adult‑focused enforcement route when children accessed weapons [9] [6]. Additionally, when a juvenile was adjudicated delinquent for a felony‑equivalent act the court had to inform the juvenile about firearm possession restrictions under s. 941.29 — a notice mechanism tied to restoring or continuing firearm disabilities after juvenile adjudications [4] [12].
5. Ambiguity, public debate and prosecutorial practice in 2020
The textual interplay between the broad misdemeanor rule and the carve‑outs produced controversy in 2020: news outlets and legal scholars flagged the exception for long‑barreled rifles/shotguns as poorly drafted and potentially creating an unintended loophole for minors carrying long guns in public, a point prominent in coverage of high‑profile incidents and subsequent legislative calls to amend the statutes [3] [8]. Sources vary in emphasis and agenda — advocacy groups and defense attorneys emphasized hunting and education exceptions [10] [7], while critics and some legislators highlighted public‑safety gaps; reporting and legal blogs reflected those different priorities rather than new statutory language [3] [2].