Key Takeaways
- Minnesota’s proposed firearm bans have gained Senate momentum, particularly with Senate File 3655 advancing through key committees.
- SF 3655 would prohibit ownership of certain semiautomatic firearms and magazines with over ten rounds, with strict compliance requirements.
- Failure to comply with SF 3655 could lead to felony charges, a fine, or both, posing significant risks to law-abiding gun owners.
- The House represents a stronger barrier to the bill due to its power-sharing arrangement, requiring bipartisan support for advancement.
- Gun owners should closely monitor SF 3655 as it threatens to convert Second Amendment rights into state-managed privileges.
Estimated reading time: 4 minutes
ST. PAUL, MN – The fight over Minnesota’s proposed semiautomatic firearm and magazine bans has shifted since I last covered this story in February, and the most significant development is not in the House. It is in the Senate, where Democrats have already moved one of the broadest gun restriction bills of the session through a key committee vote.
When I reported on this issue in February, the focus was on a pair of House bills scheduled for a committee hearing. House File 3433, which targets commonly owned semiautomatic firearms, and House File 3402, which would limit magazines to ten rounds, were both referred to the House Public Safety Finance and Policy Committee. Neither bill has shown meaningful movement since that hearing.
The Senate is a different story.
Senate File 3655 Is Already Moving
Senate File 3655 was amended and passed by the Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee on March 18 before being re-referred to the Senate Finance Committee. That is a significant procedural step forward and makes this bill the most active gun restriction proposal currently on the table in Minnesota.
Once a bill clears its first real committee hurdle, the fight changes. It becomes a live threat with compliance costs, enforcement consequences and real-world effects for people who have done nothing wrong.
What SF 3655 Would Actually Do
The bill goes well beyond anything covered in our February report. It would prohibit ownership and possession of covered semiautomatic firearms and magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds, with very limited exceptions that do not apply to the average law-abiding gun owner.
Minnesotans who lawfully owned a covered firearm or magazine before August 1, 2026, and want to keep it would be required to request certification of ownership from the Bureau of Criminal Apprehension by February 1, 2027. That certification would need to be renewed every three years. Possession would be restricted to the owner’s property, licensed shooting ranges, and lawful transport situations.
The bill also requires loss or theft to be reported within 48 hours and sharply limits transfers, including those involving inheritance and family estates.
The Penalty Structure Is Severe
This is where SF 3655 goes further than the House bills we covered in February. Failure to comply with the core prohibitions or certification requirements can result in a felony charge carrying up to five years in prison, a fine of up to $25,000, or both. Additional violations carry gross misdemeanor penalties, with repeat offenses escalating to felony charges.
Law-abiding Minnesotans who simply continue to own firearms they purchased legally could face criminal prosecution under this bill.
More from USA Carry:
Where Each Chamber Stands
The Senate is where this legislation has momentum. The House remains the stronger barrier. Minnesota’s House is operating under a power-sharing arrangement with equal party representation on committees, meaning any bill needs bipartisan support to advance. That has slowed the House bills significantly since my February coverage.
The most immediate threat is in the Senate. The next question is whether SF 3655 advances through Senate Finance. If it does, it would still need to clear the full Senate before facing the tied House.
What This Means for Gun Owners
These bills do not target criminals. They target law-abiding Minnesotans who purchased commonly owned firearms and standard equipment within the bounds of the law. If SF 3655 becomes law, continued possession of those firearms would depend on state paperwork, recurring fees, renewal deadlines and strict limitations on where and how owners may use their own property.
The Second Amendment protects a fundamental civil right. What is moving through the Minnesota Senate would convert that right into a state-managed privilege. Gun owners in Minnesota should be tracking this bill closely and making their voices heard before it moves any further.
