Preemption laws are supposed to shield gun owners from rogue local officials—but only if those laws are actually enforced. Passing pro-gun legislation is difficult everywhere, and especially in Minnesota, but getting a law on the books is only the start of the fight. Right now, Minnesota officials are attempting yet another openly illegal end-run around the state’s firearm preemption statute.
This behavior has become routine. For many municipal politicians, defying preemption is a way to signal to anti-gun donors and activists that they care more about ideology than legality. If the Second Amendment doesn’t restrain them, neither will state statute. That contempt is now on full display in Minnesota, where legal fiction and mass noncompliance have become political branding.
Saint Paul’s city council recently announced that it “stands ready to act on day one when the state lifts preemption” to enact sweeping bans on semi-automatic firearms, “large-capacity” magazines, binary triggers, “ghost guns,” and to expand “gun-free zones.” At the same time, the council concedes that none of this can be enforced under current state law.
Minnesota’s preemption statute, Minn. Stat. § 471.633, is explicit: cities and counties have no authority to regulate firearms or ammunition except for regulating discharge or passing local rules identical to state law. Anything else is void. Passing an ordinance based on the fantasy that the law might change someday is no different than refusing to pay taxes because the tax code might be amended in the future.
Nevertheless, despite admitting their plan is unconstitutional under existing law, the Saint Paul City Council unanimously passed the ordinance—becoming the first of 17 cities pledged to do the same. The city of Edina attempted a similar maneuver last week, briefly hitting pause only after its own city attorney warned that the council has no authority to enact or enforce such a ban until state law changes.
With no enforcement power, these ordinances amount to pure political theater. Yet the growing willingness of local governments to ignore state authority poses a real threat to the rule of law. Clear, consistent laws are foundational in a free society; instead, these officials are manufacturing confusion for residents and law enforcement alike.
Lawsuits—unnecessary but inevitable—will now be required to defend the rights of gun owners. This judicial ping-pong wastes taxpayer money, drains the resources of gun-rights advocates, and emboldens anti-gun politicians who benefit from the symbolism even when their policies are void on arrival.
This is why preemption matters. Without it, states devolve into patchworks of contradictory gun ordinances where compliance becomes nearly impossible without surrendering one’s rights. A Minnesotan could either travel freely across the state, or fully exercise their right to keep and bear arms—but not both.
Passing a law is only the beginning of the fight. The NRA-ILA’s work doesn’t end with expanding lawful carry; it also requires protecting the legal framework that ensures those rights are applied uniformly. Minnesota’s defiance is just the latest example of why strong preemption laws—and national efforts like H.R. 38—remain essential priorities.
