Saint Paul logo
File #: Ord 25-65    Version: 1
Type: Ordinance Status: Mayor's Office
In control: City Council
Final action: 11/12/2025
Title: Creating Chapter 225A of the Legislative Code titled Firearms Regulations to establish regulations for Assault weapons, Binary triggers, Ghost guns and Signage.
Sponsors: Rebecca Noecker, Saura Jost, Molly Coleman, Cheniqua Johnson, HwaJeong Kim, Anika Bowie
Attachments: 1. 20251022 Gun Violence Prevention Ordinance Staff Report, 2. Documents submitted during Council public hearing, 3. Public comments
Title
Creating Chapter 225A of the Legislative Code titled Firearms Regulations to establish regulations for Assault weapons, Binary triggers, Ghost guns and Signage.
Body

SECTION 1

WHEREAS, Mayor Melvin Carter and municipal leaders from across Minnesota have called on state lawmakers to take urgent legislative action on gun violence prevention, or else to allow cities to lead; and

WHEREAS, state preemption laws currently prohibit cities from enacting common-sense gun violence prevention ordinances to regulate firearms, ammunition, and its related components; and

WHEREAS, a coalition which includes mayors and city officials from Saint Paul, Minneapolis, Bloomington, Brooklyn Center, Columbia Heights, Eden Prairie, Golden Valley, Hopkins, Minnetonka, Mounds View, Richfield, Rochester, Shoreview, Saint Louis Park, Stillwater, and West Saint Paul has proposed local ordinances empowering municipalities to protect communities and children from gun-violence; and

WHEREAS, the proposed local ordinances would:

- ban assault weapons, large-capacity magazines, and binary triggers within city limits;

- require all firearms to have serial numbers and prohibit untraceable “ghost guns;”

- restrict firearms in sensitive public spaces including parks, libraries, recreation centers, and city buildings;

- mandate clear signage at public facilities to inform residents and encourage compliance;

- establish penalties for violations and authorize enforcement by local public safety officials; and

WHEREAS, the proposed ordinance is designed to take effect only upon the repeal, amendment, or judicial invalidation of state preemption laws that currently prohibit local regulation of firearms, ensuring legal enforceability while signaling the city’s readiness to act when empowered; and

WHEREAS, the number of firearms recovered in Saint Paul in 2020 was (660), in 2021, (639), in 2022 (603), in 2023 (633), in 2024 (628), and in 2025 as of October (442); and...

Click here for full text
Date NameDistrictOpinionCommentAction
11/4/2025 8:39 PMJoseph G. Against Absolutely ridiculous. Unconstitutional, overreaching proposal that will not actually help anyone, but will instead seek to jail law abiding gun owners. This is part of the problem, not the solution to violence. +4
11/4/2025 2:33 PMPeter Against You cannot pretend that state law doesn’t exist. You are wasting time and money on something that you certainly know will not hold up in court. This is no different than trying to ban “***ault words.” What if someone had large-capacity mean words on pamphlets? Maybe if someone does want to distribute ***ault language pamphlets, we should serialize them, so that we know who has all the ***ault language. Then we could put up signage to encourage compliance of restricting ***ault language. +4
11/4/2025 1:38 AMBrandon F. Against I am opposed to the proposed ordinance as a resident of Saint Paul. The ordinance will do nothing to deter the vast majority of the criminals who are the ones perpetrating the crimes who largely are already “prohibited persons” under current State and Federal law. The city, as well as the state, would be better suited spending it’s money actually finding, arresting, and actually prosecuting the criminals instead of limiting law abiding citizens in their rights. The criminals by and large are purchasing the firearms used in their crimes illegally in the first place so what specifically is this ordinance going to address again, other then limiting law abiding citizens who were already abiding the laws? How is this going to address the criminal who just committed another crime while awaiting trial for a previous crime and who already has a record going back to high school if not junior high? You cannot legislate the evil in man’s heart. +4
11/3/2025 11:46 PMMarc Against I am against ORD 25-65. As wasteful performative nonsense, it violates Minnesota Constitution's Preemption clause. It has already been targeted for legal challenge, wasting money. City leaders were specifically told this by letter. A councilwoman's flippant response shows clear contempt for peaceable gun owners as well as city residents and Minnesota taxpayers in general. The City of St. Paul already received $81,779,353 in Local Government Aid (LGA) from the State for 2025. Will you ask for more to cover lawsuits or cut city services, programs? This ordinance also sets up police if following an ordinance that doesn't match up with State law especially if arrests made as result of non-public safety traffic stops. Lastly, some courts treat violent and repeat offenders far too leniently. Far too often they continue after court appearances, harming neighborhoods. I didn't (don't) see or hear city leaders demanding action on this. Unfortunate. +4
11/3/2025 8:03 PMKatrina Lunden Against I don't live in St. Paul, but I am a permit to carry holder and I regularly come to St. Paul where do business, shop, eat, and generally spend money. To see you so willing to waste money paid in taxes by your residents is disgracefull. Your are required to be responsible with that money, not to waste it on ordinences that are illeagal, will be challenged by gunowners, (leading to expensive court costs on behalf of the city) and which are only designed to make you look like you are doing something, so you you can say, "Look, we tried." You're grandstanding, and spending tax payers money to do it. The only win you'll have is people that law abiding folk are confused about what they can and can't do. The criminals don't care because they don't follow your ordinances, just like they don't follow the law. Seriously, do your jobs better. +7 4
10/27/2025 3:33 AMBill Against I own an AR-15 rifle, what you refer to as an "***ault weapon". They are one of the most commonly owned firearms in America. I also have had a personal policy of buying three more 30 round (standard capacity) magazines any time there is a proposed bill to unconstitutionally ban these defensive tools. Given how frequently this happens, I have about 20 magazines, so if you p***ed this law, every day I was in possession of them, I would be looking at five years in jail, and a $21,000 fine. No criminal record, tax payer all my life, help my elderly neighbors. What you are proposing is making a large number of gun owners into criminals, rather than holding the actual criminals accountable with your soft on (actual) crime policies. You should be ashamed. +7
10/25/2025 6:53 PMTim Against I am strongly against this ordinance. Our city is currently under higher than normal financial constraints. Yet we are driving towards creating an ordinance that will be legally challenged, wasting time and resources we cannot afford. There are other forthcoming legal issues that better deserve our limited resources. During the council meeting, the question was raised; whether signs could still be placed if the ordinance is preempted by state law. I hope the intent here is is not how I see it. That; if the ordinance is unenforceable, we might still be able to place signs; maligning peaceable gun owners going about their day, and simultaneously spreading disinformation to all members of the public. I do not understand the origins of illiberal and regressive policies like this. While I appreciate efforts to identify ways to stop gun violence, this ordinance, presented as a means of 'doing something,' accomplishes nothing and is unconstitutional. +8
10/25/2025 5:39 PMErik Against While I can understand that certain proponents of this ordinance do so from a place of grief or genuine well meaning, this legislation is unlawful, strips good Minnesotans of constitutionally protected civil rights, and will be ineffective at curbing both political violence and crimes of desperation. Wasting resources on this legislation weakens the DFL platform, alienates and vilifies voters, and jeopardizes good policy on housing, healthcare, economic opportunity, education and equality, all of which demonstrably more effective at curbing violence than gun regulation. Please reconsider. +6
10/25/2025 3:16 PMBryan Strawser Against This ordinance is nothing but performative BS that is prohibited under the state's preemption law - and it's completely unconstitutional. Banning firearms? Give me a break. You should be ashamed of yourselves. +9
10/25/2025 3:09 PMJames Against The ordinance faces immediate legal challenge. The ordinance also states it can't go into effect until state law changes. Why on earth is the city going to waste resources and taxpayer money fighting a legal battle to keep a dormant ordinance? Please don't sacrifice my tax dollars for political optics. +11
10/23/2025 6:55 PMBrandon Against This directly violates the state preemption law as well as the 2nd Amendment of the US Constitution. You are wasting time and money on this. How about we just enforce the laws of the land. You should all be arrested and charged for even having this idea. You are not above the law. The safety of our children is extremely important but there are other ways to promote that. +9