Constitutional amendment proposal to add a section to Article I protecting the right of people to keep and bear arms
Summary
SF 719 proposes a constitutional amendment to the Minnesota Constitution that would add a new section to Article I expressly protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The amendment language closely tracks the familiar federal Second Amendment formulation, stating that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state and that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
If approved by voters, the measure would place this right directly into the state constitution and submit the question at the 2026 general election. The bill also specifies the ballot question and the title to be used for the amendment, making it a referral to the electorate rather than a change enacted solely by statute.
Impact
The bill would not itself regulate firearms or criminal penalties; instead, it would alter the Minnesota Constitution by adding an explicit state constitutional protection for firearm possession and carrying rights. That would affect how future state laws, regulations, and court decisions are evaluated, potentially strengthening legal challenges to gun restrictions and requiring state action to conform to the new constitutional language if adopted by voters.
Sentiment
Based on the bill text and available legislative history, the measure appears to be supported by its Senate authors and was introduced and referred to the Judiciary and Public Safety Committee, but there is no recorded committee debate or vote history in the provided materials. The overall framing is affirmative and rights-protective, indicating a pro-Second Amendment posture from the sponsors. Because no transcripts or votes are available, broader legislative sentiment cannot be determined from the record provided.
Contention
The central point of contention is likely to be whether Minnesota should add an explicit state constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and how broadly that right would be interpreted in relation to existing firearm regulations. Supporters would view the amendment as a direct protection of individual gun rights, while opponents may worry it could limit legislative flexibility on gun safety measures, background checks, licensing, or other firearm restrictions. No specific objections or amendments are documented in the provided committee materials.