Minnesota lawmakers recently pushed forward a controversial proposal that would dramatically restrict semi-automatic firearms, but it hit a major roadblock almost immediately. The bill in question—House File 3433 (HF 3433), with a Senate companion SF 3654—sparked intense debate over Second Amendment rights, privacy concerns, and public safety. Critics called it one of the most aggressive gun control measures proposed in recent years, especially due to provisions requiring warrantless home inspections for compliant owners.
What the Bill Actually Proposed
Introduced by DFL (Democratic-Farmer-Labor) representatives in early 2026, HF 3433 aimed to expand Minnesota’s definition of “semiautomatic military-style assault weapons.” This would have covered a wide range of popular semi-automatic rifles (think AR-15-style platforms and many others) based on features like pistol grips, adjustable stocks, threaded barrels, flash suppressors, or the ability to accept detachable magazines.
Key elements included:
- A ban on future sales, transfers, manufacturing, and possession of these firearms.
- Grandfathering for currently owned guns—but only for the existing owner, with no ability to pass them to family, sell, or inherit.
- Mandatory registration via a certificate from the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (with renewal every three years and an unspecified fee).
- Strict “safe storage” rules.
- Warrantless home inspections by law enforcement to verify compliance—no limits on how often or when these could occur.
- Severe restrictions on where grandfathered firearms could be possessed or used (limited to the owner’s property or licensed ranges, effectively blocking common activities like hunting or casual range trips outside those spots).
- Felony penalties (up to 5 years in prison and $25,000 fines) for violations, plus requirements to surrender, destroy, permanently disable, or remove non-compliant firearms from the state by early 2027.
Related proposals (like HF 3402) targeted magazines over 10 rounds with similar restrictions.
The idea was framed by supporters as a way to reduce gun violence by getting “weapons of war” off the streets, but opponents argued it targeted everyday firearms in common use for self-defense, sport, and hunting—potentially conflicting with U.S. Supreme Court rulings like Heller and Bruen, which protect arms commonly owned for lawful purposes.
Why Warrantless Inspections Raised Red Flags
The inspection clause drew particular outrage. Law-abiding owners who wanted to keep their grandfathered guns would have to consent to unlimited, no-warrant checks of their homes. Gun rights groups, including the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, described this as conditioning a constitutional right on giving up Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches. They pointed out that criminals would simply ignore the rules, leaving only compliant citizens under surveillance.
Quotes from opposition highlighted the sentiment:
- One advocate noted it turns “constitutional rights into revocable government privileges.”
- Another warned it would make “normal people… felons for owning normal things.”
What Happened: The Bill Stalled Quickly
Despite the push—tied to broader gun violence prevention efforts announced by Gov. Tim Walz—the measure didn’t get far. On February 24, 2026, the House Public Safety Finance and Policy Committee held a hearing. After testimony from both sides, the bill (as amended) failed to advance on a straight 10-10 party-line vote. The tied House (67-67 split between DFL and Republicans) and narrow DFL Senate majority made passage unlikely without bipartisan support, which wasn’t there for this package.
Companion efforts and related bills (magazine bans, etc.) also stalled or remain stuck. As of late February 2026, the aggressive semi-auto ban and inspection requirements appear dead for this session, though gun control advocates may try again or attach pieces to other legislation.
Broader Context and Takeaways
Minnesota has seen ongoing debates over firearms, especially after past sessions with mixed results on gun issues. This proposal stood out for its scope—potentially affecting hundreds of thousands of owners—and the privacy invasion angle. Supporters see it as necessary for safety; opponents view it as ineffective overreach that punishes the law-abiding while doing little about illegal guns or root causes like mental health.
For now, the status quo holds: no sweeping semi-auto ban or mandatory warrantless checks. Gun owners and civil liberties watchers will likely keep a close eye on any revival attempts in St. Paul.