SF3655 would create a statewide prohibition on the transfer, ownership, and possession of semiautomatic military-style assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines in Minnesota. The bill defines those terms broadly, listing specific firearm models and also capturing firearms with certain military-style features, detachable magazines, fixed magazines over ten rounds, revolving-cylinder shotguns, and conversion kits or parts that can be assembled into covered weapons or magazines. It also excludes permanently inoperable firearms and certain sporting-purpose firearms from the definition of semiautomatic military-style assault weapon, and it carves out limited exceptions for law enforcement, the armed forces, and licensed manufacturers and dealers transferring to those entities.
The bill establishes a grandfathering and certification system for current owners. People who legally possessed covered weapons or magazines before August 1, 2026, could keep them only if they apply to the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension for certification by February 1, 2027, renew that certification every three years, keep the items only on their property or at a licensed range, report loss or theft within 48 hours, and avoid transferring them except to law enforcement for destruction. Those who do not certify must surrender, permanently disable, or remove the items from Minnesota. The bill also addresses inheritance, requiring heirs to certify, surrender, disable, or remove the items within 120 days. The Bureau of Criminal Apprehension would be required to implement the certification system and could charge fees for certification and renewal.
In addition to the new possession bans, SF3655 amends several existing firearms statutes to conform them to the new categories. It updates Minnesota’s prohibited-persons law, transferee permit process, background-check and transfer-report rules, waiting-period provisions, and criminal penalties so they apply not only to pistols but also to semiautomatic military-style assault weapons. It also makes it a felony for a person under 21 to carry one of these weapons in public. The bill includes private-data protections for information collected through the certification process and sets an effective date of August 1, 2026, for most provisions.
The overall sentiment reflected in the bill’s structure is strongly restrictive and public-safety oriented, with no recorded committee transcript or vote history provided to show debate or compromise. The bill’s caption and text indicate a clear intent to ban a class of firearms and magazines rather than regulate them more narrowly. Because there are no committee remarks or votes in the provided materials, there is no documented support or opposition to summarize beyond the bill’s evident policy direction.
The main points of contention likely center on the breadth of the definitions, the scope of the possession ban, and the treatment of existing owners. The bill reaches a wide range of firearms by model and by features, and it imposes criminal penalties, including felony exposure, for possession or failure to comply with certification rules. Potentially controversial issues also include the certification fee, the limits on where grandfathered items may be possessed, the requirement to surrender or remove inherited items, and the use of private data by law enforcement to administer the program.
SF3655 would substantially change Minnesota firearms law by creating new statutory prohibitions in chapter 624 on semiautomatic military-style assault weapons and large-capacity magazines, while also revising related transfer, permit, waiting-period, and criminal-penalty provisions to align with those bans. It would affect gun owners, heirs, dealers, law enforcement agencies, and the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, which would administer a new certification system and maintain related private data. The bill also expands criminal liability for unlawful possession, transfer, and public carrying of covered weapons, and it would require current owners to take affirmative steps to retain lawful possession after the effective date.
Based on the bill text alone, the measure is clearly framed as a public-safety restriction and appears to be supported by its authors as a ban on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines. However, no committee transcripts or vote records were provided, so there is no direct evidence in the supplied materials of floor debate, amendments, or recorded support/opposition. The absence of discussion history means the broader sentiment can only be characterized as legislatively assertive and safety-focused, with likely controversy expected from gun-rights opponents and affected owners.
The most likely areas of contention are the bill’s broad definitions of prohibited weapons and magazines, the felony penalties for possession and noncompliance, and the grandfathering process for existing owners. Critics may object to the certification requirement, renewal fees, limits on possession locations, and the requirement to surrender, disable, or remove inherited items. Supporters would likely emphasize the public-safety rationale and the bill’s exceptions for law enforcement and military use. Because no transcripts or votes are included, specific legislators or stakeholder groups cannot be identified from the provided record.