The state of Minnesota is probably best known for cold weather and Scandinavian settlers back in the day. I’m sure there are plenty of other things about the state, but damned if I’m aware of them. Frankly, I don’t actually care all that much.

You see, Minnesota has a history of anti-gun laws. They’re not as awful as some places, to be fair, but they aren’t exactly gun-friendly.

Based on Gov. Tim Walz’s comments during Wednesday’s State of the State address, they’re not likely to get any more friendly for Second Amendment supporters, either.

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz made a vow Wednesday night that Minnesota will act on gun control as he touted progressive legislation that had passed this session under a DFL-led legislature.

Walz spoke for just over 30 minutes on Wednesday, promising he’d finish up well before the Wild dropped the puck in the Stanley Cup Playoffs.

While talking about bills that had already been able to get through the legislature, Walz also made a promise that lawmakers would act on gun control.

“We’ve got a gun safety bill on the table – and we’re going to get it passed,” said Walz. “And if anyone in America doubts that we can take meaningful action to protect our kids, I’ve got two words for you: Watch us.”

Walz said the bill would take common-sense steps to thwart gun crime, while not infringing on Second Amendment rights.

“I’m not just a veteran, or a hunter, or a gun owner. I’m a dad. And for many years, I was a teacher. I know that there’s no place for weapons of war in our schools, or in our churches, or in our banks, or anywhere else people are just trying to live their lives without fear.

Except, it’s pretty clear based on the bills being considered that anti-gun voices in Minnesota aren’t remotely interested in not infringing on Second Amendment rights. After all, look at what all is on the table.

I’m sorry, but that’s not tougher penalties for criminals who obtain a gun illegally or harsher sentencing for straw buyers. Those are literal infringements on the Second Amendment. Every one of them.

Walz can try and dress it up however he wants, but absolutely none of that is respecting the Second Amendment that he swore to support and defend as both a veteran and as a public official.

In Norse culture, which many in Minnesota are descended from, there were few things considered as vile as an oathbreaker. It was one of the worst sins one could commit.

Saying you swear to support and defend the Constitution of the United States multiple times while also trying to infringe on the constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms is oathbreaking.

Which would be bad enough, but then there’s the fact that none of these proposals will actually keep those weapons out of criminal hands.

So not only is it an infringement, but it won’t even do what Walz claims.

That means there’s no reason to pass this, but Walz will still try to ram this stuff through.