DFL lawmakers who control the Minnesota Legislature have cleared their toughest obstacle for approving two major gun regulations, paving the way for new limits on firearms to reach the desk of Gov. Tim Walz and become law.
On a 34-33 vote shortly before midnight Friday, the state Senate passed a “red flag” proposal that will allow courts to order firearms taken from someone who is a danger to themselves or others. And the Senate also approved a measure to extend background checks to certain private gun transfers. Both were part of a larger package of spending and policy linked to the criminal justice system.
The omnibus bill was opposed by every Republican and supported by every Democrat, including, critically, a small group of moderates who for months had not revealed how they might vote on the legislation.
That silence had led to a lobbying blitz from advocates of tougher gun laws and gun rights groups who wanted to stop or significantly alter the proposals. In the end, Senate Democrats struck a deal on Thursday and then banded together in a floor vote in what was one of the biggest tests of DFL unity at the Legislature this year. Debate over the omnibus bill lasted roughly nine hours.
The House is expected to take up the measure next, where the outcome is less in doubt. Democrats with a majority in that chamber had already passed a version of the gun bills earlier this year.
Here are four takeaways from the last chapter of debate over the gun regulations:
Swing-vote Democrats cited their kids, police and wanting to ‘do something’ to justify their votes
Democratic lawmakers and advocates pushing for tougher gun laws tried all sorts of arguments to sway moderate DFLers to side with them. They pointed to an embrace of the policy in some conservative states, or favorable polling. They argued the background check and red flag provisions were focused on separating people who shouldn’t have guns from those firearms, rather than banning a type of firearm for everybody. Some pointed to suicide in Greater Minnesota and elsewhere as a reason to embrace the bills.
So how did swing-vote Democrats explain their votes?
Sen. Judy Seeberger, DFL-Afton, said on Thursday that the recent killings of law enforcement officers in Minnesota and Wisconsin played a role in her thinking.
“Considering the deaths of law enforcement that we’ve had in the past couple of months including the one recently from St. Croix County — I grew up in St. Croix County, I’m a Hudson girl — so these start to feel a little bit personal,” Seeberger said. “And so I think what we’re doing right now is not working. I’d like to see something, as would everybody else, to try to get at gun violence that is ruining so many lives.”
Sen. Grant Hauschild, DFL-Hermantown, mentioned police in an interview with Northern News Now. But he also cited school shootings as a big reason for his decision to vote for the bill. And he returned to that idea on the Senate floor Friday.
“What I know is I cannot look my kids in the eye and say there is nothing I could do to keep them safe,” Hauschild said.
Sen. Rob Kupec, DFL-Moorhead, appeared to wait until the floor debate late on Friday night to explain his decision to vote for the gun regulations.
Kupec said he actually campaigned on the background check measure but had always been “somewhat tepid” on the red flag legislation. He said he met with gun owners in his district, and held town halls where “that’s all we’ve talked about.” He also met with supporters of gun restrictions like Moms Demand Action.
Kupec said he didn’t think the two gun measures would solve all violence problems. He said mental health funding the Legislature will pass was good. And he said he wished there were stiffer penalties for people who commit crimes with guns.
“But I think we have to do something,” he said. “And of all the things that have been brought forward this session, in some ways I feel like these are definitely the least onerous of things we can do.
“I think they are worth trying,” he added.
Swing-vote Democrats didn’t change the red flag, background check measures much
One reason some late-deciding DFLers said they voted in favor of gun restrictions was because of changes made to those policies meant to address concerns about impact on law-abiding gun owners. Lawmakers talked about keeping police in mind, too.
In the end, the legislation had small differences compared to the first iterations proposed by Democrats in the House and Senate.
Sen. Ron Latz, a DFLer from St. Louis Park who chairs the Senate’s Judiciary and Public Safety Committee, told reporters Friday that lawmakers scaled back criminal penalties for not producing a record of transfer when asked by police as part of an investigation. They also slashed a record-keeping requirement in that legislation from 20 years to 10 years. Democrats shortened a time period for how often the subject of an extreme-risk protection order can apply to have the order rescinded from one year to six months.
“These are important improvements to these bills that are a result of the input from particularly the new members in the Senate,” Latz said.
However, the legislation was substantially the same as what Democrats had considered all year. And there were no significant changes to some of the most controversial aspects of the legislation, particularly the red flag proposal.
A judge can grant an “emergency” order, which leads to a 14-day seizure of guns, if a person presents an “immediate and present danger.” Under those circumstances, the subject of the order is not made aware of the legal proceeding.
A judge can also grant a longer extreme-risk order, up to one year initially with potential for extensions. The gun owner in that case can give input to the court and contest any allegations.
But the emergency order, which frustrated gun rights groups but was a key part of the bill for many Democrats, was left in place. “The core features of the bills are completely intact,” Latz said.
Democrats had to narrow their agenda — but they didn’t come up empty
Gov. Tim Walz had a broader agenda for guns this year, as did many DFL lawmakers. They proposed things like gun storage regulations, restricting gun magazine capacity and raising the age for when someone can buy a semi-automatic rifle.
Some of those measures were never expected to gain traction. Other policies were snuffed out by lawmakers including Hauschild, including a measure tied to gun storage.
Eventually, Walz and others set their focus on the red flag and background check proposals, honing in on what might actually pass.
Republicans took issue with the gun policy, and how it came up for a floor vote
In the Senate debate, Republicans made a last effort to convince Democrats not to pass the gun regulations.
Sen. Andrew Mathews, R-Princeton, said he felt the proposed law would violate the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution and will only create headaches for law-abiding gun owners rather than stopping people who plan to violate gun laws to commit violence.
And he argued the “emergency” extreme-risk order violates the right to due process and can be abused by people who use the legislation in bad faith to bother, say, an ex-spouse. (The proposal does include a gross misdemeanor penalty for false accusations or petitions for an extreme-risk order meant to harass or threaten someone.)
“It gives the assumption in this bill that someone who goes and makes an order for protection against an individual, your rights are pre-emptively taken away and you have to go get a hearing before a judge to get them back,” Mathews said. “That’s not due process.”
Sen. Justin Eichorn, R-Grand Rapids, said some police are concerned about their safety if directed to seize guns from an unwilling person, or someone who doesn’t know a judge has ordered them to surrender firearms. And he noted what may be the next frontier of debate over red flag laws: Some county sheriffs might ignore the law.
(Latz said family members and others can petition a judge for an extreme-risk order, not just law enforcement. And he said the state’s association representing sheriffs told him that sheriffs would obey court orders.)
Eichorn also said Democrats won’t stop at trying to remove people’s guns. “Today it’s your guns, tomorrow it’s your Zamboni, or your gas stove, or whatever is decided to be the demon of the day,” he said.
Republicans also objected to how the gun regulations came up for a vote on the Senate floor, part of a large omnibus bill that can be voted on but not amended because of certain parliamentary rules. The conference committee — which met to negotiate the omnibus bill on behalf of the House and Senate — also included no Republicans, and rolled out the final gun regulation policy to the public shortly before the committee vote.
[cms_ad:x104]
The gun restrictions “have to be tucked into a 500 plus page omnibus bill on a last-minute notice in conference committee,” Mathews said.
At least lying to take guns away was changed from a misdemeanor to a gross misdemeanor. We all know of cases where a spouse will lie to get back at a spouse. Say right before deer season. Extreme example, but the law must cover extreme examples.
I don’t know about you, but I think we should take the chance that a man might undeservedly miss deer season one year, rather than taking the chance that he might shoot his ex-wife/girlfriend or himself after a bad breakup.
Two comments for the Republican nay-sayers.
Sen Matthew’s, I would like your office to line up the number of “people who use the legislation in bad faith to bother, say, an ex-spouse” against the number of women and kids killed by an ex-partner (many of whom had a restraining order.) And perhaps notice that the former are “bothered” while the latter are dead.
Sen. Eichhorn, I am a solid DFLer, but NOBODY TAKES MY ZAMBONI.
Not 1 “R” wants to do anything about reducing the gun violence, it was noted they said what was wrong with the bill(s), but none offered an alternate solution other than more guns and just live with the massacre that is going on in our state and country. And they call themselves Senators, seems their objective is to do nothing. No we don’t have to live like this, other countries all over the world don’t, why can’t we?
We want more police officers to investigate violent crimes and apprehend violent criminals. You don’t.
We want county/district attorney’s to charge violent offenders to the full extent of the law. You don’t.
We want judges to sentence violent criminals to substantial jail terms. You don’t.
All of these things would reduce gun violence immediately. This proposal (which I support BTW) will have a negligible impact on gun violence.
Liberals don’t “want” any of those things. That’s conservative propaganda.
And the flaws in the criminal justice system are hardly the main reason for more gun crime. More guns everywhere are the main reason for more violent crime. We are a nation awash in firearms as a direct result of the “gun rights” movement .
Oops. I guess my formulation was rather inelegant, but I think you know what I mean!
Right, liberals don’t want to prosecute violent, gun-toting criminals. That was my point.
Flaws in the criminal justice system are the only reason for gun crime. You could hand me 500 guns and I would never commit 1 crime with them. Neither would you. It’s the people, not the guns. But we refuse to lock up the people. We all know why.
Not correct at all. It assumes all crime is premeditated, and that unforeseen circumstances can never arise. You or I might commit a gun crime, if we have at our disposal 500 firearms, even through inaction. What will NEVER happen, is you or I committing a gun crime, should we NOT have access to any guns.
It does not make that assumption at all. Some crime is premeditated, some isn’t. I wouldn’t leave my house with the gun trying to break into cars, for starters. Oh, but that kid in St. Paul did and he killed somebody. Apparently you will be SHOCKED to find out he was on video just a few short months ago brandishing a gun in a school bathroom, robbing another student. I can’t speak for his victim’s family, but I bet they would have preferred he was in jail so he wasn’t free to murder someone. You see it differently, which I just can’t wrap my head around.
Commiting a gun crime through ‘inaction’? I don’t know what that would entail. Not shooting someone?
Removing all guns from society is not reasonable. Fantasy land.
You cannot say you will never commit a gun crime, if you own a gun, period. No amount of obfuscation, or as many anecdotal canards as you can put forth, will change that basic fact. No one can, or should, trust the fact that because you haven’t done so yet, you won’t do so tomorrow. Your word is not enough. What you describe as fantasyland, is the only objective solution. Anything less is simply trading innocent lives for what you perceive as freedom. Believe whatever you like, but understand that is what you are defending.
Your first paragraph is unadulterated conservative propaganda. Your second is completely belied by scores of mass shootings in our deeply uncivilized and violence-prone country. And where’s the “mental health” concern?
“You could hand me 500 guns ”
And if you are daily handling 500 guns you will undoubtedly shoot yourself within one year.
“We want more police officers to investigate violent crimes and apprehend violent criminals. You don’t.”
What a bunch of nonsense. MPD, and many other depatments, are trying to hire, but the candidates aren’t there. With record low unemployment rates, where are all these extra cops going to come from?
Dispositive proof that the Dems are the only party willing to actually take measures to stem the appalling and endemic gun violence which has been enabled by the irresponsible “gun rights” movement for almost 25 years now. Equally appalling is the monolithic opposition of the MN Repub party to even these rather tepid gun reforms, which is quite telling as to its lack of seriousness as a political party. It is essentially an institution for manufacturing and inflaming partisan behavior and vitriol at this point; nothing else. It is a obstinate roadblock to progress, on an enormous range of subjects.
I expect the usual suspects will appear to assure the world that these Greater Minnesota Dems have “signed their political death warrant” or somesuch formulation. Well, we’ll see. And even if those responsible legislators did that with their vote, they can rest assured that they enacted something that will save someone’s life, without any doubt whatever. And not a single Repub can claim that.
So, Bravo and thanks to the MN Dems!
Angry women and weak men.
A concise description of the lens through which male “conservatives” view contemporary American society, and the two worst dangers they can imagine.
What the country really needs is angry men and weak women, obviously!
The all new Dodge 4×4 Compensator is waiting for you. Consider your Man Card reissued!
Angry women and weak men. Yes. women are angry with weak men who unable to control their urge to kill others or make a police officer kill them – as well as other weak men who are unwilling to protect others from angry violent men with guns. So why do big strong men need guns to get in the last word? Strong men do not have to resort to violence against their family, friends, neighbors, co-workers or any other unfortunate person who gets in their way.
Their preferred leader is a rapist who pays off porn stars and tells people how easy it is for him to commit sexual assault. Bragging publically about being a complete misogynist is simply one piece of being a conservative.
If I could tell legislators anything it would be that these measures are helpful; however when politicians throw out the ‘we need to fund mental health’ please, please be more specific. If you look at school shooters, many did not have obvious mental health issues, there were a number of issues going on and yes, crisis responders, mental health in schools, etc. are helpful. But what is also helpful for minors and adults would be to have higher level of care placements for those with mental health issues and criminal issues with a focus on prevention yet still respecting a person’s legal right. This means at times, locked or highly structured settings that also can address complex mental health needs for those who have been assaultive. Stop going the low hanging fruit and get into the weeds on this issue. Please listen to law enforcement and social service providers who do the work vs throwing money at various groups with few requirements.
It will be interesting how many times “Red Flag ” law will be used. It will be watched very closely and every detail will be scrutinized.
Also interesting how many current legal gun owners will be volunteering for a background check and getting put on a government gun owners list. The bad people won’t be.
Also interested to know if the 2nd Amendment Foundation and MN Gun Owner’s Caucus will be suing.
People cried to “do something”. We’ll, it is something. Just not anything to reduce crime.
Typical Leftie response, do something even if it doesn’t work. Criminals with long records are doing most of the shootings and killings in America by far. Criminals can’t legally buy guns, how is this measure going to help with gun violence. Not sure how many criminals will be “red flagged”, but I’m betting not many!
As you have been told many times but refuse to accept, “criminals” are not the main target of Red Flag laws. (Although some might be, you simply don’t know.)
Criminals commit the most violent gun crimes, by far!!. That is why this “law” is not going to change anything! Not sure why Lefties can’t attack the real problem. Gets back to optics, look like you are doing something while actually doing nothing.
“Criminals with long records” are not the ones taking AR15s to school for Second Amendment Show and Tell.
You are correct, criminals are not shooting up schools, they are shooting up neighborhoods daily. So when a little girl gets killed by a stray bullet in her yard that is somehow less impactful than a school shooting? Hundreds of shootings from criminals with guns (just having a gun is illegal for a convicted felon) happening monthly but trying to address that is too hard so we will put in bogus laws that won’t stop a damn thing!!!
First, you are very imprecise in your use of the term “criminal.” Do you mean people who have actual records of convictions? Or a person who commits a criminal act (welcome to tautology city!)? What percentage of gun crimes are committed by them, as opposed to first-time offenders? No anecdotes from TV news or online commentators, please. Let’s see hard data.
Second, how are these criminals getting the guns? Guns are legal items; it is their use or possession that is illegal. If there were fewer guns in circulation, wouldn’t that decrease the opportunities for stealing/acquiring them?
Third, why aren’t the gun laws being enforced? Could it be traceable to a lack of resources, or a lack of will on the part of politicians in thrall to the gun lobby? How long has it taken for the approval of a director of ATF?
“Criminals with long records are doing most of the shootings and killings in America by far.”
Sounds like you’re defining criminals to include people who kill themselves and/or their loved ones. Which is valid, but also wholly contradicts your point. Red flag laws are designed to reduce such incidents. Which would be a good thing, wouldn’t you agree?
Joe, criminals and criminals to be, do not have to “legally buy guns” as you say. They can easily get them from careless legal owners, in the parking lot at gun ‘shows’ (wink, wink), legal straw buyers (girlfriends, family members, friends). Joe, you know why don’t you; the country is awash in guns thanks to Republican elected officials, gun organizations, weapons manufacturers, and other foolish people who are afraid of losing their gas stoves in the next step of reasonable regulation.
A better example of that would be believing that the country that has by far the world’s highest incarceration rate would see a reduction in crime by simply locking up more people.
These new laws will do little to reduce the large amount of gun crimes in the Twin Cities or MN.
The problem lies with the county attorny’s offices in the metro area. Their reluctance to punish crime because they are in an elected position means that its got to get bad enough that the feds have to come in and kick some arse.
Once again, that is not the problem red flag laws are intended to address.
Correct. Which is very on-brand for Democrats. Appear to do something, but actually do nothing.
Actually do less than nothing. Its the negative subtraction method, that isn’t getting taught in any schools.
There is always the Republican solution: make a lot of noise, find a powerless/unpopular group on whom the entire issue can be laid, then complain because no one likes what is basically a lot of nothing.
The fact that this reform targets something other than what Andy (and you) want to talk about hardly means that it “does nothing”.
And if it really “does nothing”, why do you claim to support it?
Because even though it flies in the face of due-process, I think getting guns out of unstable individuals hands is a good thing. I support it, but I don’t believe it’s legal. (However, unlike most people, I’m self-aware enough to know I am not a constitutional scholar so I’ll wait to see how the courts rule, which is where I’d image this ends up.) Anyway, to me red-flag laws are an after-thought, akin to taking your car to the mechanic and they recommend an oil-change while they’re replacing your transmission. Red-flag laws are the oil-change. Me? I’d make sure to get that transmission fixed.
If such laws are unconstitutional then the Constitution is a suicide pact.
And yes, there’s almost no doubt that this issue will someday be before the democratically-illegitimate Repub Supreme Court. As will the ongoing attempts to ban assault weapons by several states.
BK,
There are already laws on the books to intervene when someone is in danger to themselves or others. It doesn’t get used very often. How does this differ?
I have severe doubts that what you are saying is accurate, Andy.
So this “law” is not meant to stop the real problem but address a smaller issue…. Well isn’t that a great policy decision, ignore the big issue but do something our base can feel good about.
Depends on how you define what the ‘real’ problem is. Sure, criminals that use guns are scary. But far more people die at the hands of a loved one, or themselves. Seems like anything we can do to address those issues is good. Wouldn’t ypu agree?
For keeping guns out of the hands of criminals, what’s your suggestion? Gun rights types hate background checks, waiting periods & gun registration. So what’s the answer?
Brian, if you are serious about stopping gun violence you would have laws compounding sentences if you use a gun while committing a crime. Use a gun while robbing a store, carjacking, robbing a person, breaking into a house, gets 10 years added to your sentence immediately. Convicted felons caught with guns 5 years in prison.
Unlawful possession of guns and using guns while committing a crime need to be punished if you want to clean up gun violence in Twin Cities. Instead of getting tough on criminals we are getting tough on legal gun owners. Perfect!
” if you are serious about stopping gun violence…”
That’s my point. Gun violence kills far more victims of domestic violence and self-inflicted wounds than random acts. Anyone serious about limiting gun violence will focus on the highest rates of gun deaths – not on red herrings. Yes, random acts of gun violence are bad. But far more people die from domestic violence or suicide, which red flag laws are designed to reduce. That’s worth fighting for, right?
He seems to think having an even higher percentage of the population incarcerated (never minding the fact that we have the highest incarcerated population in the Western world) will somehow change the equation. Perhaps conservatives would prefer we all just start in prison as a default, and only earn freedom through perfect behavior to our authoritarian masters? Who am I kidding, of course they would.
Andy you are correct in hour first paragraph in that These two new ‘fluff’ laws will do little to reduce gun crimes.
Your 2nd paragraph is wrong as you well know. The problem lies in the fact that the country is awash in guns and gun paraphernalia with little meaningful regulation because of knee-jerk Republicans who have their re-election dollar as their bottom line. Money is more important to them than are people’s lives.
Excellent report, Walker Orenstein! Your work has motivated me to support MinnPost with a modest donation. Keep on reporting and writing, please.
I do like the registration idea along with registering my car for different reasons. I think this will help a little in prevention, but like Clinton in 1994 this takes a MAJOR effort. Clinton’s 1994 crime bill dealt with so many facets. I think we need to IMMEDIATELY look for solutions to car jacking, crime & filth on light rail (like we dealt with car pool cheaters quickly in 394 with more highway patrol & patrol cars), and gun violence. We are moderates, but you can’t help but notice the catch and release problem: U of M student caught and released 3 times last weekend, or 17 year old with gun in school then kills the man in St Anthony Park while robbing numerous parked cars AGAIN. You can’t help but notice these as we are short handed in the police department and this just adds to their work load. However, I don’t believe either party at local, state, or federal has the courage to deal with this and yet safety IS there number one job. We need to deal with the immediate violence and the long term prevention- you need both. Blame does not help.
It could be guessed that public safety officers don’t like public safety reform. It seems to me that the Conference Committee Report reflects what the majorities in the House and Senate have come to know: public safety involves many, many levels of policy to make a difference on both the prosecution and defense sides. In last year’s session, the GOP majority could have gone to a conference committee with its tough-on-crime approach. Nothing got done so the people of Minnesota have sent our Representatives and Senators to do the work they wish to see. It’s getting done as we speak.
Of course, Ron DeSantis is a supporter of red flag laws as he signed it into being in FL and it has been used over 6,000 times since then:
“The red flag law uses what are called risk protection orders to remove weapons from people deemed a threat.
It is something that actually had bipartisan support when passed.
“We passed a law, and we’re four years later. And thank God nothing like this has happened again in Florida,” Republican Rep. Randy Fine said.
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle agree, the red flag law passed in the wake of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting is working.”
I guess red flag laws are not WOKE!
So many gun proponents on here mock Democrats for passing what they label “meaningless gun laws that will not reduce gun deaths.”
You guys don’t see the irony? Dems WANT and try to pass much more meaningful gun control laws that absolutely would decrease gun-related deaths (especially the slaughter of children with AR-15 type weapons), but you Republican gun lovers won’t allow more meaningful gun control.
So…for now, we take what we can get. And sadly, we wait for more Republican gun lover legislators to experience personal loss by guns – and then come around to passing even stronger gun control laws. It’s just a matter of time.
And, sadly again, how many slaughtered children will it be until those laws finally happen?