As we reported earlier today, the Minnesota Senate Judiciary Committee has approved a bill banning the sale of so-called assault weapons and large capacity magazines that allows existing owners to keep ahold of them only if they get permission from the state police and agree to open their homes up to inspection from law enforcement.
Minneapolis Democrat Sen. Zaynab Mohamed, who is the primary sponsor of SF 3655, was on hand to answer any questions from committee members, but was utterly stumped when Republican Sen. Michael Holstrom asked her a simple question about the scope of her proposed ban.
Senator Holstrom: Raises important technical questions about the scope of the gun ban.
— National Association for Gun Rights (@gunrights) March 13, 2026
Senator Mohamed: "I can't answer any of that. We should talk about how these are bad guns. Not how, they just are."
Goes on to waffle about "hunting shacks" and "gun hunters." https://t.co/Bdw1FB95Jt pic.twitter.com/5aK439tZQo
Holstrom said he took the text of Mohamed's bill with him to a sporting goods store on Thursday, and couldn't find a single hunting rifle that would not have met her definition of "assault weapon."
"We all read it to read that the shroud attached to the barrel would not permit any form of a foregrip, which nearly every rifle that I've ever seen has one," Holstrom noted. "Was that the intent of the bill? Because it seems to go far beyond the semi-automatic 'military' rifles that you claim to be targeting here."
Mohamed gave this cringeworthy response:
I think the bill speaks for itself. Um, wha-, what we're talking about in this bill is.. uh... I think we should talk about what these weapons are most commonly used for. They're used for taking human life. Um, we can have a conversation about protecting hunting culture, I think Mike touched on that, but I don't think anyone would find these firearms at the hunting shack or at the deer, um, or in the deer stand. But I'll say these types of weapons are not used by ethical gun hunters, er, ethical hunters.
I'm not sure Mohamed could tell a foregrip from a salad fork, to be honest. It's pretty clear she's simply taken the language given to her by the gun control lobby and put her stamp of approval on it.
As for her contention that the semi-automatic firearms she wants to ban are most commonly used for taking human life, that's just an outright lie. The National Shooting Sports Foundation estimates there are more than 32 million modern sporting rifles in the country. According to the FBI's most recent crime stats, rifles of all kinds were involved in about 540 murders in 2023. That's about 4% of all homicides, and less than the number of murders in which fists or feet were the weapon of choice (665). In fact, that figure shows that homicides in which a knife is used are three times as common as murders where a rifle of any kind was the weapon.
The guns that Mohamed and her fellow Democrats want to ban aren't most commonly used to take human lives. They're used for lawful purposes like self-defense, competitive and recreational shooting, and yes, hunting too.
Holstrom also quizzed Mohamed about banning commonly owned magazines that can hold more than ten rounds. Her proposal would ban pistol magazines as well as rifle magazines, and Holstrom wondered if she'd thought about the mom who might be forced to protect herself and kids from harm. Why should be limited only to ten rounds when even law enforcement may fire more than that in order to stop a violent assailant?
Of course, Senator Mohamed's response to this is "well you can buy different guns!"
— National Association for Gun Rights (@gunrights) March 13, 2026
Stunning mental faculties on display. https://t.co/YjQv3728Fv pic.twitter.com/xXyV6eJWFI
Sure, you can buy different guns, but they're still going to have the same arbitrary limit on carrying capacity. Mohamed then added that law enforcement and the military are exempt from the ban, which doesn't help Holstrom's hypothetical mother at all.
Mohamed's cluelessness wasn't cause for concern among her fellow Democrats, who advanced her bill on a party-line 6-3 vote. Of course, the vast majority of her DFL colleagues are just as willfully ignorant on the subject as she is. The facts don't matter here, nor does logic. If Mohamed truly believes that the guns and magazines she's trying to ban only belong on a battlefield, then why is there a carveout for even a handful of existing owners who don't mind informing the state police they own one or more and letting police inside their homes to see how they're stored?
The honest answer is that those gun owners are next. Once a ban has been established, the anti-gunners will go back and remove any language exempting people who lawfully possessed those arms when the ban took effect. And since the state police will have a record of everyone who obtained a certificate of ownership, they'll have a handy list of whose guns need to be confiscated; not because these guns are "battlefield weapons of war," but because to date, the Supreme Court hasn't explicitly said they can't be banned.
Were it not for the Heller decision, I'm sure Mohamed would be demanding a ban on handguns as well as "assault weapons." And if a Democrat-packed Court ever overturns Heller, rest assured that the anti-gunners will start going after out pistols as well as our AR-15s and other semi-automatic long guns.
