HF2244 would eliminate Minnesota’s current “shotgun zone” for deer hunting during the regular firearms deer season. Under the bill, all legal firearms could be used statewide for taking deer, rather than limiting hunters in the designated shotgun-use area to shotguns loaded with single-slug shells, muzzle-loading long guns, and handguns. The bill also repeals the existing statute that defines the shotgun use area and its geographic boundaries.
In practical terms, the measure would make deer hunting firearm rules uniform across the state during the regular firearms season. Hunters in areas currently subject to the shotgun restriction would gain access to the same lawful firearms options already available in the rest of Minnesota. The bill does not create a new licensing system or season structure; it changes only the type of firearms permitted for deer hunting in the regular firearms season.
Impact
The bill amends Minnesota Statutes section 97B.031 by adding a new subdivision stating that during the regular firearms deer season, all legal firearms may be used statewide. It also repeals section 97B.318, which currently establishes the shotgun use area and the firearm restrictions within that area. As a result, the state’s deer-hunting firearm regulations would shift from a geographically divided system to a statewide all-legal-firearms rule, affecting deer hunters, wildlife enforcement, and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources’ administration of hunting regulations.
Sentiment
The available context suggests generally favorable or at least straightforward support for simplifying deer hunting firearm rules, as reflected by the bill’s concise caption and lack of recorded committee opposition, testimony, or votes in the provided materials. The bill appears to be framed as a regulatory change rather than a controversial policy overhaul. Because no transcripts or vote records are included, there is no documented public debate in the supplied record to indicate broader support or resistance.
Contention
The main point of contention implied by the bill is the elimination of the shotgun zone itself. Supporters would likely favor statewide consistency and expanded firearm choices for deer hunters, while opponents may prefer retaining the current geographic restriction for safety, tradition, or wildlife-management reasons. The bill text does not include committee testimony, so no specific stakeholder positions are recorded here, but the issue most likely divides hunters, conservation interests, and residents in the affected region over whether the existing shotgun-only area should remain in place.