It's not unusual to see gun control bills that completely ignore any pretense that the Second Amendment exists. I mean, that's the underlying premise of most of what anti-gunners want. They keep claiming that gun control is constitutional, yet how often are they able to make actual constitutional arguments that don't hinge on an inane reading of the amendment's introductory clause?
The answer is never.
But in Minnesota, the proposed assault weapon ban that's in the pipeline is easily the most egregious such ban we've seen yet.
Why? Because of something that, unlike in some other states, is meant to look like a compromise with gun owners, but is anything but.
Let's start with the bill itself. The Sportsman's Alliance breaks it down pretty succinctly:
Tomorrow, the House Public Safety Finance and Policy committee will hold a hearing on two egregious bills, HF 3433 and HF 3402, that are not just “gun control” measures; they are a direct assault on the tools and rights sportsmen use to put food on the table and to manage our state’s wildlife.
Use the Take Action button to contact the members of the committee and urge them to oppose HF 3433 and HF 3402.
Here is why every sportsman and gun owner in Minnesota must stand against these bills:
HF 3433: Redefining Modern Hunting Rifles as “Assault Weapons”
HF 3433 bans the sale, manufacture, and transfer of modern hunting rifles by redefining them using a broad “feature-based” definition that will reclassify them as a “military-style assault weapon,” and adds strict “grandfather” registration requirements for the newly defined “assault weapon.”
They also note that there's a magazine surrender and possession ban in the works.
So far, though, it doens't look that different than what we've seen out of some other states. The problem is that it's far worse than those, and it's in part due to how that grandfather clause is written.
Minnesota lawmakers are advancing legislation that would ban possession of nearly every semiautomatic firearm in the state, creating what gun rights advocates warn constitutes one of the nation’s most aggressive attempts to criminalize commonly owned weapons while imposing unprecedented warrantless home inspections on gun owners who attempt to comply.
...The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus bluntly summarized the scope, stating this covers “basically, almost every single semiautomatic rifle.” The bill makes it unlawful to transfer, own, or possess any firearm meeting the new definition. Violations would be a felony punishable by up to five years in prison and a $25,000 fine.
A limited grandfathering provision exists for firearms lawfully owned before January 1, 2027, but the conditions are extraordinarily restrictive. Owners must apply for a state issued certificate of ownership from the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension by May 1, 2027, at an unspecified fee. They must allow warrantless law enforcement inspections of their homes to verify “safe storage” compliance with no limit on frequency. They must renew the certification every three years. Also, they can only possess the firearm on property they own or control or at a licensed firing range. They must report loss or theft within 48 hours. Most significantly, no transfers whatsoever are permitted, not even to family members, not through a trust, and not through inheritance.
In other words, if you use a semi-auto hunting rifle that will be covered by this particular bill, you can keep it if you really want to, but you've got to let the state walk into your home to inspect your storage situation, whether you want to or not. While they're in there, if they happen to see something that's illegal —even if you don't realize it's illegal — and this can be literally anything, not just firearm-related — you can find yourself arrested, prosecuted, and convicted. The Fourth Amendment will not protect you.
Plus, because of the fact that this covers so many semi-automatic weapons, it's proof that when they say they're not coming after your hunting guns, they were lying all along.
And when you die, the gun can't be passed on to your descendants. Since the state will know the guns exist, there's little chance of playing sneaky and just pretending it didn't happen, either. I'm not even sure it could be transferred out of state, which is ridiculous.
Of course, the grandfather clause is put in there to make it look like they're not trying to take anyone's guns, but it's structured in a way that sure looks like they're attempting to dissuade anyone from taking advantage of that clause.
To call it dirty is an insult to dirt.
Now, is this a slam dunk in Minnesota? Probably not. Gov. Tim Walz has been disappointed in the past over the state's refusal to pass less stringent assault weapon and magazine bans, so I somehow can't convince myself that this year, he'll get exactly what he wants.
But from a starting position like this, even a narrowed-down bill could still be disastrous for gun rights. That includes for hunters and non-hunters alike, so all you Fudds, it's time to stop playing nice. They were never going to leave you alone. I hope you get that now.
Editor's Note: The mainstream media continues to lie about gun owners and the Second Amendment.
Help us continue to expose their left-wing bias by reading news you can trust. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member