A Minnesota gun-rights organization has fought a legal battle with St. Paul in state court for the past six months, arguing that the city unlawfully passed a ban on modern semiautomatic firearms.
The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus (MNGOC) sued the capital city in November after it passed the ordinance targeting so-called “assault weapons” — which St. Paul drafted to only take effect if the state’s firearms preemption law is repealed. The gun-rights organization argued that the city should not be allowed to keep the measure on the books due to the “profound legal uncertainty” that “chills the present exercise of their fundamental right to keep and bear arms,” according to the complaint.
“The St. Paul City Council knowingly passed Ordinance 25-65 (the ‘Ordinance’), creating a new chapter of the city’s legislative code, Chapter 225A, that extensively regulates and bans the possession, transport, and sale of a wide range of common firearms, magazines, and accessories, and further purports to ban the carrying of firearms by permit-holders in numerous public places,” the complaint says. “The City attempted to shield this illegal ordinance from judicial review by including a provision stating that it will only take effect upon the future repeal or amendment of the general preemption law.”
Minnesota District Judge Leonardo Castro rejected requests by the gun-rights group for a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction. In May, he refused to dismiss the lawsuit, noting that gun owners would still have to comply with the ordinance despite uncertainty about whether it would be enforced.
“This court concludes that Plaintiffs have pleaded sufficient facts to support a present and concrete controversy,” Castro wrote in the order denying St. Paul’s motion to dismiss.
Democratic St. Paul Mayor Kaohly Her did not immediately respond to a request for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation.
MNGOC General Counsel Rob Doar said that the group’s strategy was affected by past experience with litigation in state courts.
“We have had more success when the case can be decided on other legal grounds. For example, we recently prevailed in a lawsuit against Tim Walz challenging Minnesota’s binary-trigger ban because the Legislature violated the Minnesota Constitution in the way the bill was passed,” Doar told the DCNF.
“That is also important here because the St. Paul case is not really a Second Amendment case,” Doar continued. “Our argument is that Minnesota law preempts local gun-control ordinances. The Legislature has said firearm regulation should be uniform statewide, and cities generally cannot create their own separate gun laws.”
Doar also pointed out that for the last 15 years, Democrats have been appointing judges due to their control of the governor’s mansion since Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty left office after the 2010 midterm elections.
(DCNF)
