REGIONAL — The Minnesota Senate on Monday approved a sweeping gun control package that would ban the future sale of assault-style weapons and high-capacity magazines, but there is no path forward for the proposal in the House.
The bill passed on a narrow 34-33 vote, with all Democrats in support and all Republicans opposed. The House is split 67-67, and no comparable bill has advanced there.
The proposal represents one of the most significant firearm restrictions considered by Minnesota lawmakers in recent years, building on earlier laws passed in 2023. But even as it cleared the Senate, the debate revealed unease within Democratic ranks and a stark divide between the two chambers.
What the proposal would do
The legislation would prohibit the future sale of weapons such as the AR-15 and ban magazines capable of holding more than 17 rounds. Current owners of those firearms and magazines would be required to register them with the state Bureau of Criminal Apprehension and renew that certification every three years.
The package also reinstates a ban on binary triggers, which increase a firearm’s rate of fire, and makes it a felony to sell ghost guns without serial numbers. In addition, the bill includes funding to expand mental health services and school safety measures.
A one-vote margin
The bill’s passage hinged on complete Democratic unity in the Senate, where the party holds a one-seat majority. Any defection would have halted the proposal.
That unity was not a given.
Several Democratic senators, particularly those representing rural areas, had expressed reservations about banning firearms. Among them was Sen. Grant Hauschild, DFL-Hermantown, who spoke during Monday’s floor debate about a personal connection to last year’s shooting at Annunciation Catholic Church.
“It shouldn’t take a personal experience that I had in order for me to have the courage to do something, but that is the reality that I’m living,” Hauschild said.
Hauschild ultimately voted in favor of the bill, helping provide the margin needed for passage.

Support with reservations
Other Democrats also voiced concerns even as they backed the legislation.
Sen. Judy Seeberger, DFL-Afton, criticized the terminology used in the debate and questioned the framing of the policy.
“Calling them weapons of war is disingenuous. Making up terms like assault weapons doesn’t help us advance the real issues,” Seeberger said. “It’s frustrating to me that people who don’t fully understand the issue try to make policy on that issue.”
Despite those concerns, Seeberger said the Legislature needed to act.
“We must do something,” she said.
The divide within the Democratic caucus reflects the broader political landscape in Minnesota, where support for gun restrictions varies widely between urban and rural areas.

A stalled path  in the House
While the Senate debate focused on whether to act, the bigger obstacle is whether the bill can advance in the House at all. Republicans, including House leadership, have consistently opposed new firearm restrictions, arguing they infringe on Second Amendment rights and fail to address the root causes of gun violence.
“We’re taking political votes instead of passing real solutions. Partisanship in an election year is blocking the progress our kids deserve,” said Sen. Julia Coleman, R-Waconia.
Republicans have also argued that the measure targets law-abiding gun owners and would not have prevented the Minneapolis shooting that helped drive the current push for legislation.

A divided public
Public opinion on the issue reflects similar divisions. Recent polling shows strong support for an assault-style weapons ban in urban areas, while a majority of rural Minnesotans oppose such measures. Slightly more than half of rural respondents also oppose restrictions on high-capacity magazines.
Those regional differences have shaped the debate at the Capitol and help explain the hesitation among some lawmakers, even within the majority party. For now, the proposal’s future comes down to the House.
If current party positions hold, the Senate-passed bill is unlikely to reach the governor’s desk.

MPR News contributed to this article