Minnesota House Bill HF4745

Minnesota 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/26/26
• Refer: 3/26/26

Caption

Firearms prohibited in buildings owned by or under the control of state or local governments, and criminal penalties provided.

Summary

HF 4745 would create a new felony offense for possessing a firearm inside a building owned by the state or a local government, or inside a portion of a building leased or otherwise controlled by a state or local government and used for government administration. A violation would be punishable by up to five years in prison, a fine of up to $10,000, or both. The bill applies only to buildings or spaces used for government administration and expressly excludes certain other locations already covered elsewhere in Minnesota law. The bill includes exceptions for licensed peace officers and military personnel performing official duties, as well as for anyone who has written permission from the person with general control and supervision over the building or space. It also states that it does not apply to locations already addressed in other subdivisions of the same statute. The effective date is August 1, 2026, and the new felony penalty would apply only to crimes committed on or after that date.

Impact

HF 4745 would amend Minnesota Statutes section 609.66 by adding a new subdivision that expands criminal penalties for firearm possession in government buildings. It would affect people entering state and local government administrative buildings, including employees, visitors, contractors, and others, by making unauthorized firearm possession in those spaces a felony rather than a lesser offense or no offense under this specific provision. The bill would also give building supervisors discretion to authorize firearm possession in writing and would preserve existing rules for other covered locations under related subdivisions.

Sentiment

Based on the available record, the bill appears to have been introduced and referred to the House Public Safety Finance and Policy Committee without recorded votes or committee testimony in the provided materials. As a result, there is no documented debate or formal sentiment from hearings in the supplied context. The bill’s framing suggests a public-safety rationale focused on restricting firearms in government workplaces, but the available materials do not show whether that approach was broadly supported or opposed.

Contention

The main potential points of contention are likely to be the scope of the firearm ban, the decision to make the offense a felony, and the breadth of the covered locations. Supporters would likely emphasize safety in government buildings and the need to protect public employees and visitors, while opponents may argue that the bill imposes a severe penalty for mere possession, could affect lawful gun owners who inadvertently enter covered buildings, and may raise concerns about enforcement and notice. The written-permission exception and the carveout for peace officers and military personnel may also be relevant to debate over administrative discretion and consistency in application.