Key Takeaways
- Mayor Jacob Frey signed the Safe Firearms Act in Minneapolis, despite state law preempting such regulations.
- The ordinance bans assault-style weapons, high-capacity magazines, and unserialized ghost guns but cannot be enforced until state preemption is lifted.
- Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus plans legal action against the ordinance, arguing it’s unlawful without state authority.
- The ordinance serves as a political move to pressure the Minnesota Legislature for statewide gun control action.
- Minneapolis’s ordinance raises Second Amendment concerns, as it targets common firearms owned by many Americans.
Estimated reading time: 5 minutes
MINNEAPOLIS, MN — Mayor Jacob Frey signed a sweeping new firearms ordinance into law on Wednesday, May 13, 2026, that the Minneapolis City Council had unanimously passed the previous week. There is just one problem with it. Minnesota state law preempts the City of Minneapolis from doing what the ordinance does, and the city has openly acknowledged that most of it cannot actually be enforced unless the legislature first repeals the preemption statute.
The ordinance, branded the “Safe Firearms Act” by its lead author, Council Member Aurin Chowdhury, contains bans on so-called assault-style weapons, ammunition magazines holding more than 10 rounds, binary triggers, and unserialized “ghost guns.” It also includes restrictions on carrying firearms in certain public places and a set of safe storage requirements. The full 13-member City Council approved it on May 8, 2026. Frey signed it five days later at a City Hall press conference, calling it one of the “leading pieces of legislation in the entire country.”
The preemption problem is not a side note. It is the entire legal context for this story. Under Minnesota Statutes Section 624.717 and Section 471.633, local governments in Minnesota are barred from regulating firearms or ammunition. Cities may adopt ordinances identical to state law and may regulate the discharge of firearms within their jurisdiction. They cannot do more than that. The legislature has placed exclusive authority over firearm regulation with the state.
To work around that, the Minneapolis ordinance contains language stating it cannot be enforced unless state law changes. Frey was explicit about the strategy at the signing. “This is going to set us up so that if preemption is lifted, Minneapolis won’t need to act because we already did.”
The St. Paul Precedent
St. Paul passed a substantially similar ordinance last year. The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus sued to invalidate it, and that case is currently pending in court with a trial scheduled for next year. The Caucus argued in St. Paul, and is again arguing in Minneapolis, that simply enacting an ordinance the city has no authority to enact is itself unlawful, regardless of whether the city ever tries to enforce it.
Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus Chair Bryan Strawser issued a statement before the Minneapolis vote. “The City of Minneapolis is attempting to make a political statement with an ordinance it has no legal authority to enact. Minnesota law clearly preempts the entire field of firearms regulation, and local governments cannot simply ignore state statute because they dislike the policy outcome.” General Counsel Rob Doar called the ordinance “facially invalid and immediately susceptible to legal challenge” in a letter to the council, adding that “no legislative gimmick, such as an indefinite effective date, can circumvent a statutory bar.”
The Caucus said after the signing that it is evaluating its legal options against Minneapolis.
The Push For Statewide Action
Frey and Chowdhury were not subtle about the second purpose of the ordinance, which is pressure on the Minnesota Legislature. The Minnesota Senate has already passed a statewide gun control bill along party lines that would include a ban on what the bill labels assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. The bill has not advanced in the House, which Republicans control by a one-seat majority and which has not moved it through committee.
If the Minnesota House ever flips, or if state preemption is repealed, Minneapolis is essentially holding a ready-to-execute local ban that activates the moment state law allows it.
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms Question
The legal challenge in Minnesota will turn primarily on state preemption, which is the strongest argument against the ordinance and the cleanest path to striking it down. But the policy itself raises the same Second Amendment problems being litigated right now in Virginia, Maryland, Illinois, and several other states where similar bans are on the books or have just been enacted. The Supreme Court held in District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen that firearms in common use for lawful purposes cannot be banned. AR-style rifles and standard-capacity magazines holding more than 10 rounds are owned by tens of millions of Americans and are among the most common firearms and accessories in the country.
Minneapolis passed an ordinance that bans what most American gun owners own. The city’s own legal position is that it cannot enforce that ban unless the state lifts preemption first. That is a strange position for a city government to take publicly, and it is the position that will be tested in court.
I will be tracking the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus challenge against both the St. Paul and Minneapolis ordinances closely, along with anything that happens at the state legislature during the remainder of the session.
