Binary Trigger Ban Remains Unenforceable: Judge Denies State’s Stay Request Amid Appeal

In a major win for constitutional governance and Second Amendment rights, a Ramsey County judge has denied Minnesota’s request to enforce a binary trigger ban while the state appeals an earlier ruling that declared the law unconstitutional. The decision, issued on November 5, 2025, ensures the ban remains blocked—reinforcing that unconstitutionally passed laws cannot be enforced, even temporarily.

This ruling stems from a controversial provision tucked into Minnesota’s 2024 omnibus tax bill, a move critics say violated the state constitution’s Single Subject Clause. Here’s what you need to know about the case, the court’s reasoning, and what comes next.

What Are Binary Triggers?

Binary triggers are firearm accessories that allow a semi-automatic weapon to fire one round when the trigger is pulled and another when it’s released. This effectively doubles the rate of fire without converting the gun into a fully automatic weapon.

Proponents of the ban argue these devices make firearms dangerously more lethal, citing their alleged use in the tragic 2024 Burnsville shooting that claimed the lives of three first responders. Gun rights advocates, however, contend that binary triggers are legal modifications protected under the Second Amendment and that the legislative process—not the device itself—is the real issue.

How the Ban Was Passed—and Why It Was Struck Down

During the 2024 legislative session, DFL lawmakers inserted the binary trigger ban into a 1,400+ page omnibus tax and spending bill—a sprawling document covering budgets, taxes, and unrelated policy measures.

The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, represented by the Upper Midwest Law Center (UMLC), challenged this move, arguing it violated the Minnesota Constitution’s Single Subject Clause, which requires bills to address one subject only to prevent legislative “logrolling.”

On August 18, 2025, Ramsey County Judge Leonardo Castro agreed, ruling the provision unconstitutional and permanently enjoining enforcement of the ban.

“The Minnesota constitution requires that bills passed by the legislature address a single subject.” — Richard Painter, University of Minnesota Law Professor

Judge Castro noted that while omnibus bills are permissible if limited to a single broad topic (like public safety or budgeting), inserting a gun regulation into a tax bill crossed the line.

State Tries to Revive the Ban—Court Says No

After the August ruling, Attorney General Keith Ellison and Governor Tim Walz appealed and requested a stay—asking the court to allow enforcement of the ban during the appeal process.

On November 5, Judge Castro denied the stay, delivering a sharp rebuke:

“To stay this Court’s Order would be, in essence, to validate a law that was unconstitutionally enacted, which this Court will not do.” — Judge Leonardo Castro

Key points from the ruling:

• The state failed to show likelihood of success on appeal.
• Public interest favors NOT enforcing unconstitutional laws.
• Allowing arrests under an invalid law would violate due process.

Castro emphasized:

“Reinstating a criminal law that everyone agrees is unconstitutional serves no purpose.”

Gun Rights Group Pushes to Strike Down Entire Omnibus Bill

While the binary trigger ban was the only provision challenged in this case, the UMLC argues the entire 2024 omnibus bill should be invalidated due to systemic single-subject violations.

“We believe there will be other litigants who will seek to strike the whole bill as well… nothing else seems to be getting [the legislature’s] attention.” — Doug Seaton, Founder & President, Upper Midwest Law Center

The group has filed a cross-appeal, and both sides are now headed to the Minnesota Court of Appeals. The Minnesota Supreme Court denied expedited review, meaning a final resolution could take months.

Both Sides React: Safety vs. Constitutional Overreach

Attorney General Keith Ellison’s office defended the ban’s intent:

“Binary triggers significantly increase a gun’s rate of fire, making semi-automatic weapons far more deadly… Attorney General Ellison is committed to defending Minnesota’s ban, which has broad public support and improves the safety of Minnesotans everywhere.”

Meanwhile, Nicholas Nelson, senior appellate counsel at UMLC, celebrated the ruling:

“The court’s decision is a clear victory for the rule of law and constitutional governance… The public interest is never served by enforcing an invalid law.”

Why This Case Matters Beyond Guns

This isn’t just about binary triggers—it’s about how laws are made.

• Prevents legislative abuse: Stops lawmakers from sneaking controversial policies into massive bills.
• Protects due process: Ensures citizens aren’t criminalized under invalid laws.
• Sets precedent: Could impact future omnibus bills in Minnesota and beyond.

As Judge Castro warned, the court showed “judicial restraint” by not striking the entire bill—but future violations may not be so lenient.

What’s Next in the Minnesota Binary Trigger Case?