Minnesota lawmakers are advancing legislation that gun rights advocates describe as one of the most aggressive firearm restrictions proposed anywhere in the country. House File 3433 and its Senate companion, SF 3654, would ban the possession of nearly all semiautomatic firearms meeting an expanded definition of “semiautomatic military style assault weapons,” while imposing strict compliance requirements on current owners.
Introduced during the 2026 legislative session by DFL lawmakers, the bills are titled “Possession of semiautomatic military style assault weapons banned, and criminal penalties provided.” As of February 22, HF 3433 was referred to the House Public Safety Finance and Policy Committee, with a hearing scheduled for February 24. According to the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, Senate versions had not advanced as of that date, though the political balance remains tight.
🚨 HAPPENING NOW 🚨
Hundreds of you have already submitted written testimony opposing HF 3433 (Gun Ban) and HF 3402 (Magazine Ban).
That’s great.
But there are hundreds of thousands more of you who still need to act before 3:00 PM today.
📢 Let’s overwhelm the Minnesota House… pic.twitter.com/5no4NYe7oG
— MN Gun Owners Caucus (@mnguncaucus) February 23, 2026
The proposed legislation significantly broadens Minnesota’s existing statutory language. Under the new definition, semiautomatic rifles that accept detachable magazines and have one or more listed features — including pistol grips, adjustable or telescoping stocks, thumbhole stocks, flash suppressors, threaded barrels, barrel shrouds, or forward grips — would be prohibited. The bill would also ban semiautomatic centerfire or rimfire rifles with fixed magazines holding more than 10 rounds, certain semiautomatic pistols with specified features, qualifying shotguns, and even parts or conversion kits capable of assembling such firearms.
Opponents argue the scope is vast. The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus summarized the proposal as covering “basically, almost every single semiautomatic rifle.” Violations would constitute a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison and a $25,000 fine.
A grandfather clause exists for firearms lawfully owned before January 1, 2027, but it carries stringent conditions. Owners would be required to apply for a state-issued certificate of ownership from the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension by May 1, 2027, pay an unspecified fee, and renew certification every three years. The bill would require owners to allow warrantless inspections of their homes to verify safe storage compliance, with no specified limit on inspection frequency. Firearms could only be possessed on property the owner controls or at a licensed firing range, and loss or theft would need to be reported within 48 hours. Transfers — including to family members, through trusts, or by inheritance — would be prohibited.
Those who decline certification would be required by January 1, 2027, to surrender the firearm for destruction, permanently disable it, or remove it from the state. Because transportation would be restricted to property controlled by the owner or to licensed ranges, critics argue hunting with grandfathered firearms would effectively be barred.
Gun rights advocates contend the legislation conflicts with U.S. Supreme Court precedent, including District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which emphasized protections for firearms “in common use” for lawful purposes. They argue that semiautomatic rifles are among the most commonly owned firearms nationwide and that the warrantless inspection requirement raises serious Fourth Amendment concerns.
Supporters of the measure maintain that the legislation is aimed at reducing gun violence and limiting access to weapons they argue are disproportionately used in mass shootings. The debate now hinges on razor-thin legislative margins. The Minnesota Senate is controlled by the DFL by one vote, while the House is evenly divided. The bill’s future may depend on party unity and whether any cross-party votes emerge.