St. Paul Mayor Melvin Carter has proposed a new “Gun Violence Prevention Ordinance” aimed at pressuring Minnesota lawmakers—especially Republicans—into supporting a statewide gun ban. The proposal, however, violates the state’s firearm preemption law, which prevents cities from creating their own gun regulations. The ordinance claims it would only take effect if the state legislature repeals that preemption law, something that political experts say is highly unlikely.
The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus has already promised to challenge the measure in court if it passes. Rob Doar, president of the Gun Owners Law Center, warned that even though the ordinance isn’t enforceable yet, it could still confuse residents. “People might think the law is already in effect and change how they behave,” Doar said, adding that such confusion could discourage people from exercising their rights.
Minnesota’s firearm preemption statute clearly states that all gun regulation authority belongs to the state, not cities or counties. Local governments can only regulate firearm discharge or adopt rules identical to state law. That means any local rule outside these limits is void. Despite this, St. Paul officials continue to push the ordinance, giving the impression that it might eventually be enforceable.
Mayor Carter says the city wants to ban assault weapons, binary triggers, and guns in public spaces like recreation centers and libraries. He also supports requiring serial numbers on all firearms. City Council President Rebecca Noecker backs the plan, calling it “common sense legislation” and arguing that state and federal lawmakers have failed to reflect public opinion on gun issues. She said the city wants to ensure the ordinance is legally sound, but legal experts maintain that under current law, the proposal has no real authority.
Critics argue that the ordinance is more political theater than policy. They say it’s meant to make a statement rather than bring real change since any enforcement attempt would immediately be struck down in court. Instead of addressing urgent security concerns, they argue, officials are using gun control debates for political gain.
Meanwhile, Minnesota schools continue to face serious safety issues. For instance, some classrooms at Chisago Lakes Middle School still lack proper doors, relying instead on curtains for lockdowns—something parents and students find terrifying. A recent $64 million tax referendum that would have funded safety upgrades failed, leaving schools with the same inadequate security measures.
Governor Tim Walz has refused to call a special legislative session to discuss school safety unless Republicans agree to vote on an assault weapon ban. Republican lawmakers, on the other hand, are pushing for millions in school security grants and say they could get bipartisan support if Walz allowed it. Critics accuse the governor of holding school safety hostage to advance his political agenda.
What frustrates many observers is that improving school security should be a bipartisan issue, yet it’s being stalled by partisan fights over gun control. While students and parents worry about real safety risks, leaders are focused on political posturing. As some put it, violent criminals won’t be deterred by symbolic ordinances, and delaying practical safety solutions only puts children in greater danger.
