Earlier today the Minnesota Senate held a meeting of the “Gun Violence Prevention Working Group", and though the group took no action on any gun control legislation they discussed almost every type of restriction you can imagine; from bans on commonly owned firearms to requiring permission from the government to simply keep a gun in the home.
One theme that emerged from the testimony by Senate Democrats is that, contrary to the typical talking points of the gun control lobby, they absolutely do have a problem with "law-abiding gun owners." Senators like Liz Bolden and Ron Latz repeatedly pointed out that the United States has more guns than people. If that's a problem, and clearly they think it is, then doesn't that necessarily mean taking a certain number of guns away from a certain number of law-abiding citizens? What other way is there to bring the number of guns in legal hands down to a point where there are more people than guns?
Sen. Bonnie Westlin was even more explicit in her attacks on legal gun owners. She argued that the individual who attacked Annunciation Church in Minneapolis could legally own a gun, as could the perpetrators of several other high-profile shootings, including man suspected of assassinating Charlie Kirk last week. "Lawful gun owners are lawful until the day they're not," in her words.
At least one Republican senator also seemed to back the idea of a gun ban, at least for some individuals. Sen. Glenn Gruenhagen, giving testimony, claimed that "RFK" is proposing a ban on transgenders owning guns. I've not seen any evidence that the HHS Secretary is pushing that, though there have been efforts within the Department of Justice to find a way to do so; efforts have received pushback from every major Second Amendment organization.
The working group, announced ahead of Gov. Tim Walz's expected special session on gun control and public safety, is comprised of both Democrat-Farmer-Labor and Republican senators who claimed the legislature needs "to do something", but the two sides had very different ideas on what that something should be. Democrats focused almost exclusively on going after guns (and gun owners), while their Republican counterparts brought up increased funding for mental health and school security.
Democrats also insisted that, no matter how extreme their proposals, they still respect the Second Amendment. Sen. John Marty, for instance, promoted his package of anti-gun legislation that would (among other things), create a licensing requirement to own a firearm, mandate liability insurance for all gun owners (an idea that recently ruled unconstitutional by the Third Circuit Court of Appeals), registration of all firearms, a ban on “assault weapons” and "large capacity" magazines, a "one-gun-a-month" law (which was recently ruled unconstitutional by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals), a reporting requirement for lost or stolen firearms, and numerous new "gun-free zones" including the state capitol building, city halls, and other public buildings.
“This is not ignoring the Second Amendment,” Marty claimed.
Senator John Marty claiming his MASSIVE gun control bill doesn't have an "undue burden" on law-abiding gun owners. pic.twitter.com/PApo1InciX
— MN Gun Owners Caucus (@mnguncaucus) September 15, 2025
I'd love to know what Marty believes would be an undue burden on lawful gun owners, because I can't find a limiting principle in his proposal.
The MN Gun Owners Caucus had a proposal of their own that they brought to lawmakers, though the DFL members of the working group seemed uninterested in what the group had to say.
🚨 Happening NOW at the MN Senate: the so-called “Gun Violence Prevention Working Group” is meeting.
— MN Gun Owners Caucus (@mnguncaucus) September 15, 2025
We submitted testimony + real proposals:
✔️ Focus on violent criminals, not peaceable gun owners
✔️ Stop wasting tax $ defending unconstitutional laws
✔️ Protect civil rights,… pic.twitter.com/9zgkiucl7s
The only real silver lining from today's hearing is that the DFL has let their mask of moderation slip for all the world to see. Throughout the three-hour hearing DFL senators made their position abundantly clear: legal gun owners are a problem, and we need fewer guns in their hands. The only way to do that is through bans and confiscations, and given the non-compliance rate even that wouldn't guarantee that they'd collect a significant number of firearms.
I get the desire to "do something" after a tragedy like the targeted attack on a group of school children. And lawmakers make laws, so it makes some sense that their "something" involves new legislation. What we heard from the DFL today, though, was an outright assault on a fundamental civil right and those Minnesotans who are lawfully exercising it. Their dangerous proposals would not only infringe on our Second Amendment rights and deepen the partisan divide in the state. It would embolden and empower criminals while eviscerating the ability of average citizens to defend themselves and their loved ones. Minnesota gun owners need to speak up now about these terrible ideas, and everyone else needs to be on guard for similar legislation in their own capitol buildings. Anti-gun politicians see this as a golden opportunity to exploit tragedy and play on our fears in order to advance their agenda, and they won't be limiting their efforts to just one state.
