Gov. Tim Walz (D) already announced that “when the bill reaches my desk, I’m going to sign a red flag law and background checks into law.” The new provisions will take effect in August once signed.
The House on Tuesday approved the legislation by a 69-63 vote after the state Senate barely gave its approval 34-33 on Friday. The bill’s fate was uncertain for most of the session as several lawmakers from swing districts were noncommittal about their support.
Included in the proposals is the contentious “red flag” law. This allows authorities to petition the courts for “extreme risk protection orders” to temporarily strip guns away from people believed to be a danger to themselves or others.
Critics charge that the provisions are ripe for abuse and in many instances deny the target their constitutional right to due process.
House Minority Leader Lisa Demuth (R) argued that making the exercise of basic liberties more difficult for citizens is not the way to address crime. “If we pass additional laws that are going to be more difficult for law-abiding gun owners to function with, the criminals aren’t going to pay attention to additional laws. And that is where we need to put our focus on gun safety, is the criminal effect.”
Bryan Stawser is the chairman of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus. He released a statement calling the new provisions “ineffective and unconstitutional.” He and several other opponents noted that language was added to the final package just last week with little public notice.
Sen. Rob Latz (D) of St. Louis Park is the chairman of the Senate public safety committee, and he expressed his disagreement with those who believe red flag laws go too far.
“What we are going to be providing — finally — is a path forward for families and law enforcement who know that someone’s exhibiting signs of crisis or danger,” he asserted. “And it will give them lawful tools to separate people in crisis from the firearms that are around them.”
The red flag provision is contained in a larger public safety budget package that will also enact expanded background checks.
Again, arguments that the proposal encroached on Second Amendment rights and due process fell on deaf ears in the Minnesota legislature.
The enhanced background checks now require these actions for private weapons transfers for pistols and semiautomatic rifles. Law enforcement and family members are excluded from this requirement.
The soon-to-be Minnesota law allocates $880 million for the court system, violence prevention, and the Department of Corrections. Opponents accuse state lawmakers of slipping controversial gun control measures into the package.
Another controversial element enables state inmates to lower their sentences by 17% if they participate in programs for education, therapy, and training.
There is a clear line of demarcation in the U.S. concerning states and their approach to basic Second Amendment rights. While many recently have moved in the direction of individual liberties on such matters as concealed carry, others are doubling down against constitutional guarantees.
States such as Colorado and Washington recently approved sweeping and likely unconstitutional measures to enact more stringent gun control. And the governor of Tennessee called for a special August session of the state legislature to address the issue after the mass shooting at a Nashville elementary school.
None of this is happening in a vacuum, rather it is a series of knee jerk actions following horrific criminal acts. But yet again, instead of focusing on those who commit these crimes, lawmakers instead move to restrict those who follow the law and seek to protect themselves.
