[[{“value”:”
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to follow and signup for notifications!
We reported recently how city leaders in St. Paul, Minnesota, were contemplating passing some punitive gun-control restrictions despite that fact those proposals ran afoul of the state’s firearms preemption law.
At the time, councilors, with support of the mayor, wanted to pass a ban on common semi-autos (so-called “assault weapons”) and firearms magazines that can hold 20 or more rounds.
“We have to do something,” said St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter. “What we’re saying isn’t that you can’t make, sell, or own an assault rifle. What we’re saying is don’t carry it down Grand Avenue.”
On November 12, the council passed the measure despite the fact that it is unenforceable as long as the preemption law is on the books. And the final statute is much worse than just an “assault weapons” ban. Not only does it ban many semi-auto firearms and normal capacity magazines that come standard with many firearms, but it also makes it illegal to possess a binary trigger or a firearm without a serial number.
When you understand the state’s preemption, you’ll realize exactly how far afoul of that law this statute is. The preemption law states: “The legislature preempts all authority of a home rule charter or statutory city, including a city of the first class, county, town, municipal corporation, or other governmental subdivision, or any of their instrumentalities, to regulate firearms, ammunition, or their respective components to the complete exclusion of any order, ordinance or regulation by them except that: (a) a governmental subdivision may regulate the discharge of firearms; and (b) a governmental subdivision may adopt regulations identical to state law. Local regulation inconsistent with this section is void.”
Incidentally, even State Rep. Kaohly Her, who is challenging Mayor Carter in the upcoming November 5 election, criticized the proposal for running afoul of the state preemption law.
“To proactively pass ordinances, or to pass ordinances that you know will be legally challenged, which means you are using tax dollars to fight something just to make a stand, to say that you’ve done something, that’s super performative,” she told Spokesman-recorder.com.
Shortly after the council passed the statute, the Minnesota Gun Owners Cause, a gun-rights group, filed a lawsuit challenging what it called a “legal gimmick” that clearly violates the preemption law.
“Despite these clear and distinct prohibitions, the St. Paul City Council knowingly passed Ordinance 25-65 creating a new chapter of the city’s legislative code, Chapter 225A, that extensively regulates and bans the possession, transport and sale of a wide range of common firearms, magazines and accessories, and further purports to ban the carrying of firearms by permit-holders in numerous public places,” plaintiffs argue. “The City attempted to shield this illegal ordinance from judicial review by including a provision stating that it will only take effect upon the future repeal or amendment of the general preemption law. This legal gimmick does not cure the Ordinance’s fundamental defects. An act that is void from its inception cannot be revived by a future contingency.”
The lawsuit was filed with Minnesota’s District Court, Second Judicial District. Ultimately, the organization is asking the court to declare the law unconstitutional and to issue a permanent injunction prohibiting its implementation or enforcement.
“}]]
