St. Paul Invites Lawsuit With Gun Control Vote

The St. Paul City Council is expected to approve a package of gun control ordinances today that would ban public possession of “assault-style” firearms, magazines that can hold more than ten rounds, and binary triggers. The ordinances won’t take effect, however, until or unless the state legislature repeals Minnesota’s firearm preemption law or issues a carveout for the city. 

Even though the ordinances contain that limiting language, the MN Gun Owners Caucus has been clear that they’ll sue any locality that decides to adopt this stunt, arguing that the ordinance is still a violation of state law regardless of whether it can be enforced at the moment. 

“State law is not ambiguous about this,” said Rob Doar, general counsel for the Gun Owners Caucus, in a statement last month. “The courts have made that clear for nearly forty years. Whether the City delays enforcement or dresses it up as a symbolic measure, the result is the same: it’s unlawful from day one.”

City Attorney Lyndsey Olson said St. Paul is ready to defend the ordinance, because the language is clear that it is contingent on a change in state law, a common practice.

Olson compared the dormant ordinance to state abortion restrictions that only took effect when the Roe v. Wade Supreme Court ruling was overturned. 

Doar has already explained why Olson’s comparison isn’t applicable, but clearly the City Attorney doesn’t want to listen to reason. 

Judicial Review Isn’t the Same as State Preemption

Some have argued that cities can pass gun ordinances now—despite state law forbidding it—just as states passed “trigger” laws on abortion to take effect if Roe v. Wade were overturned.
That comparison misunderstands two very…

— Rob Doar (@robdoar) October 23, 2025

That comparison misunderstands two very different kinds of legal authority.When a court reviews a statute for constitutionality, it does not erase the law from the books. Courts interpret and apply law; when a statute violates the Constitution, the judiciary simply refuses to enforce it in that case. The statute still exists until the legislature repeals or amends it. This is the logic of Marbury v. Madison… the Constitution controls when statutes conflict with it, but the court’s remedy is one of non-enforcement, not repeal.

A clear example is the Gun-Free School Zones Act of 1990. When the U.S. Supreme Court held in United States v. Lopez (1995), that Congress had exceeded its Commerce Clause power, the Court did not “invalidate” the statute in the sense of erasing it. The Act remained on the books—unenforceable until Congress amended it to include a jurisdictional element tying the regulation to interstate commerce. That is judicial non-enforcement in action: the law persisted, but without effect until the legislature fixed the constitutional defect.

State preemption, by contrast, is an exercise of legislative power, not judicial restraint. It is the state’s explicit command that local governments cannot legislate in a given area at all. Minnesota’s preemption statute, Minn. Stat. § 471.633, could not be clearer: “The legislature preempts all authority of a home rule charter or statutory city … to regulate firearms, ammunition, or their respective components.” That is an express prohibition—a denial of authority, not a green light as long as they delay enforcement.

So while “trigger laws” reflect a state’s own deferred choice to act under its sovereign power, a preemption statute is the sovereign’s instruction that subordinate units lack that power altogether. When a city enacts an ordinance in a preempted field, it is void from inception—not waiting to be “triggered” by future judicial change.

Of course, it won’t be the city council members who have to foot the city’s legal bills to defend their new gun control ordinance. It will be St. Paul taxpayers, and they should be ticked about their elected officials wasting their money on a doomed anti-gun crusade. 

St. Paul isn’t the only city in Minnesota, though, where local politicians are thinking about enacting similar ordinances as a way to signal support for a statewide ban on so-called assault weapons. This is all a coordinated campaign designed to put pressure on Republican lawmakers and the handful of rural Democrat legislators who still aren’t on board with Gov. Tim Walz’s push for a gun and magazine ban, as well as a direct attack on Minnesota’s preemption law. 

The city council could adopt a resolution in support of their favorite gun control laws without issue, but if they proceed with passing an ordinance the ensuing legal action is going to be fun to watch. Pass the popcorn, and maybe pass a buck or two to the MN Gun Owners Caucus to help them take on St. Paul’s power grab in court. 

Editor’s Note: After more than 40 days of screwing Americans, a few Dems have finally caved. The Schumer Shutdown was never about principle—just inflicting pain for political points.

Help us report the truth about the Schumer Shutdown. Use promo code POTUS47 to get 74% off your VIP membership.