Minnesota Gun Laws Potentially Impacted as Supreme Court Reconsiders Second Amendment Scope

Why it matters locally: The U.S. Supreme Court's examination of Second Amendment rights directly impacts Minnesota residents, businesses, and government due to the state's own gun control legislation and the implications of federal court rulings. Minnesota, like many other states, regulates firearm ownership, types of firearms allowed, and where individuals can carry them, meaning that changes to federal standards will have downstream effect. Specifically, cases concerning who can own firearms (e.g., drug users, those under restraining orders) could require the state to adjust its own laws or enforcement practices. Furthermore, the ongoing debate over what constitutes a protected arm under the Second Amendment will also be relevant in Minnesota. If the Supreme Court provides clearer guidance on restrictions regarding magazine capacity or semi-automatic rifles, the Minnesota legislature as well as the Minnesota courts will have to modify existing gun laws regarding these items. The rulings regarding 'sensitive places' may require adjustments to Minnesota statutes regarding places where Minnesotans can and cannot carry firearms.

---

Washington D.C. — The Supreme Court is currently grappling with several cases that could significantly alter the landscape of gun control in the United States. These cases revolve around three core questions: who may possess firearms, what types of arms are protected by the Second Amendment, and where individuals may carry them. In recent years, the court has issued key rulings on Second Amendment rights. The 2008 *District of Columbia v. Heller* case established an individual's right to own firearms, while the 2022 *New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen* decision extended that right outside the home. The "who" question concerns permissible restrictions on firearm possession. The 2024 case *United States v. Rahimi* affirmed the government's ability to disarm individuals who pose a credible threat to the physical safety of others, specifically those under restraining orders. Currently, the court is reviewing *United States v. Hemani*, which examines whether the government can disarm individuals who unlawfully use drugs. Further legal challenges are anticipated regarding the right of 18-to-20-year-olds to possess firearms and the ability to disarm convicted felons, particularly those convicted of non-violent crimes. The "what" question addresses which arms are protected under the Second Amendment. *District of Columbia v. Heller* established that the Second Amendment protects arms in "common use" for lawful purposes. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals recently struck down a ban on magazines holding over 10 rounds of ammunition, citing their common use. However, lower courts are split on the constitutionality of such bans. The Supreme Court is also facing increasing pressure to address the legality of bans on semiautomatic rifles like AR-15s, especially given their popularity in the United States. The "where" question pertains to location-based restrictions on carrying firearms. While *Bruen* affirmed the right to carry firearms outside the home, the court acknowledged the possibility of restricting firearms in "sensitive places." *Wolford v. Lopez*, currently before the court, challenges a Hawaii law that prohibits carrying firearms on private property open to the public without the owner's express permission. Lower courts have issued conflicting rulings on what qualifies as a "sensitive place." The Supreme Court's engagement with Second Amendment cases has been infrequent historically. After *United States v. Miller* in 1939, the court remained largely silent on the issue for decades. The pace has increased recently, with the court expected to rule on *Hemani* and *Wolford* this term. These decisions, combined with the numerous pending petitions on other Second Amendment issues, signal a potentially significant shift in the legal landscape of gun control.