Back to News February 25, 2026
Minnesota DFL Reboots Gun Control Agenda with Sweeping Bans and New Criminal Penalties
Minnesota’s gun control fight is back on center stage. Not because voters demanded it or crime data supports it but because Democratic politicians see an opening for campaign talking points that could swing a tied state legislature. With the state House split 67-67 under a power-sharing agreement and a narrowly-controlled Democrat Senate, the stage is set for a new wave of gun bans on commonly owned firearms and magazines, even as antigun legislators stall efforts to crack down on repeat violent offenders.
The bills, HF 3434, SF 3681, HF 3433, HF 3402 and HF 3407, have only received first readings and committee referrals but the breadth of the package signals antigun Democrats in the Land of 10,000 Lakes intend to restore Gov. Tim Waltz’s stalled gun control push from last fall and drive it into a session-long pressure campaign.
A Ban by Any Other Name…
The centerpiece proposal is HF 3434, which would make it illegal to transfer, own or possess a broad category of “semiautomatic military-style assault weapons” and “large-capacity ammunition magazines.” HF 3434 would create a “current owner” certification scheme administered through the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension and local law enforcement, requiring law-abiding owners wanting to keep their legally purchased firearms to seek certification, then bars transferring the firearms except by surrender for destruction. In other words, it is a ban on future acquisition of semiautomatic rifles coupled with a path toward forced attrition of lawful ownership over time.
The bill, which has a companion bill (SF 3681) in the Senate, is paired with HF 3433, a framework bill defining the targeted firearms. HF 3433 would prohibit possession of a broad class of gas-operated semiautomatic rifles, most commonly known as Modern Sporting Rifles (MSRs) like AR-15-style rifles. This bill is similar to the previous gun ban bill, with certificates for maintaining those currently possessed but goes further by mandating storage requirements and submit to warrantless home “safe storage” inspections and limit their use to the home or a licensed range, effectively barring their use for hunting or informal plinking in the woods.
Gun control activists often claim MSRs are “weapons of war” with no legitimate civilian use. That talking point collapses under a basic reading of the Second Amendment and common sense. The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized the Second Amendment protects arms “typically possessed” and “in common use” for lawful purposes, including but not limited to self-defense. MSRs, with over 32 million in circulation, are among the most popular firearms owned by Americans for a myriad of lawful purposes.
Fortunately for those law-abiding Minnesotans who revere Second Amendment rights, this MSR-ban bill stalled out in committee by a tied vote of 10-10, which means the bill failed in the House. While the companion bill in the Senate is still viable, and there are always tricks that can be pulled by those seeking to circumvent the legislative process, for the time being this egregious gun ban bill is stopped.
Magazine Limits, School Carry Rollbacks and ‘Gun-Free’ Zones
DFL lawmakers also filed HF 3402 to ban “large-capacity ammunition magazines,” defined to include commonly owned, standard sized magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. Politicians routinely sell magazine bans as a “reasonable” compromise that will meaningfully reduce crime. That assertion is blindly unsubstantiated at best and grossly misleading at worst. Criminals, by definition, ignore the law. It also ignores the reality that magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds are commonly possessed for lawful use. NSSF conservatively estimates there are at least 717,900,000 of these magazines supplied to consumers by firearm manufacturers and the aftermarket.
Antigun Democrats are also targeting lawful carry in more places, otherwise known as “gun-free zones.” HF 3401 would modify the circumstances when firearms are permitted on school property as well as impose uniform storage requirements, a move framed as “clarification” but designed to narrow existing exceptions.
In a bit of similar good news like the previously mentioned MSR ban bill, the magazine capacity limit bill, HF 3402, stalled in committee on the same 10-10 vote and failed to advance to a full House vote. NSSF will continue to watch for any legislative gymnastics that gun control proponents may attempt.
‘Ghost Guns’ and the Push to Police Code
Another piece of legislation is HF 3407, a wide-ranging so-called “ghost gun” bill that reaches beyond unfinished frames and receivers. It would create new penalties for possession and transfer of so-called “ghost guns,” and force serialization of firearms lacking a “unique serial number.” It also targets digital firearm design files by making it unlawful to distribute computer-aided design (CAD) files or other digital instructions that could be used to program a 3D printer to manufacture a prohibited firearm.
Minnesotans should understand what that means in practice. The bill is not limited to prosecuting criminals who misuse firearms. It builds a compliance regime that pushes ordinary activity into a criminal enforcement framework. That is a policy choice with serious constitutional questions that lawmakers should not rush through under the banner of “doing something.”
Gov. Walz Roadshow Redux
Minnesotans have seen this performance before. When DFL leaders couldn’t muscle sweeping restrictions through a special session in 2025, Gov. Walz took his show on the road with carefully choreographed “town halls,” then returned to St. Paul with bills that would criminalize firearm ownership and lawful conduct while doing little to stop criminals who already ignore the law. The 2026 package follows a similar script.
Lawmakers should be honest about what these proposals will do. An “assault weapons” ban is a ban on popular semiautomatic firearms used every day for lawful purposes. A magazine limit is a limit on the ability of law-abiding citizens to defend themselves with the same standard equipment around which most modern firearms are built.
Minnesotans deserve policies that target violent criminals, strengthen prosecution and address root causes of violence, not legislation that punishes responsible gun owners and undermines a fundamental Constitutional right.
You may also be interested in:
New Mexico’s 2026 Gun Control Push Stalled, but the Overreach Will Return
Judge Again Rejects Elephant ‘Personhood’ Bid — and Pennsylvania Law Is Better for It
Categories: BP Item, Featured, Government Relations, Top Stories
25650
