2A advocate says Minneapolis passed an unenforceable gun control law and “they know it.”

Gun rights YouTuber and Second Amendment advocate Liberty Doll says Minneapolis has passed a local gun control ordinance that city leaders already know cannot be enforced under current Minnesota law.

In a new video, Liberty Doll said the Minneapolis City Council adopted a sweeping gun ban within city limits, even though Minnesota’s state preemption law limits what local governments can do on firearms regulation.

“The city council in Minneapolis, Minnesota, has adopted a gun ban within city limits that is totally and completely unenforceable,” she said.

Her argument is not simply that she disagrees with the ordinance on policy grounds. Instead, she said the city itself appears to recognize the legal problem, because the ordinance includes language acknowledging that it cannot be enforced unless state law changes.

Minneapolis Moves Ahead Despite State Limits

Liberty Doll said Minnesota is already dealing with several major gun control proposals at the state level, including an omnibus firearms bill that narrowly passed the state Senate on a party-line vote.

According to her, that bill would ban many commonly owned firearms, magazines over 17 rounds, privately made firearms, binary triggers, and other items. She noted, however, that the state proposal has not yet become law and may face trouble in the House.

Even so, Liberty Doll said Minneapolis chose to move ahead on its own.

The problem, as she explained it, is Minnesota’s preemption law. That kind of law generally stops cities and towns from creating their own local firearms rules that conflict with state law.

Liberty Doll said St. Paul already tried a similar move and was sued, and she expects Minneapolis to face the same result if it attempts to enforce the ordinance.

That is the part that makes the move feel less like a serious public safety plan and more like a political statement. Cities can pass symbolic measures, but when they pass ordinances they know may not survive in court, the public still pays for the legal fight.

What The Ordinance Would Ban

Liberty Doll said the Minneapolis ordinance runs about 10 pages and includes several major restrictions.

According to her summary, it would ban so-called assault weapons, high-capacity magazines, and homemade firearms within city limits. It would also add stricter rules around carrying firearms in public, safe storage mandates, and requirements for reporting lost or stolen guns.

She said the ordinance defines “ghost guns” broadly, including unfinished frames or receivers. It also treats magazines over 10 rounds as “high capacity” and bans them for most people, with exceptions for federally licensed firearms dealers and law enforcement.

The ordinance would also ban the possession, transport, storage, transfer, manufacture, sale, and trade of so-called assault weapons for most people, again with exceptions for FFLs and law enforcement, according to Liberty Doll.

She also said it creates “sensitive places,” requires signage, and bans guns in public unless carried by someone with a concealed carry permit or stored in a locked container outside a vehicle.

The storage rules, as Liberty Doll described them, are also detailed. Guns not being lawfully carried concealed would have to be kept in a locked container or secured with a trigger lock. If stored in a vehicle, she said, they would need to be kept in a separate lock box inside a locked car.

Between 10 p.m. and 4 a.m., she said, the ordinance would require the gun to be in a locked garage as well.

A Law With A Built-In Disclaimer

Liberty Doll said the ordinance’s most revealing part comes near the end.

According to her, the measure includes a disclaimer stating that it cannot be enforced unless Minnesota’s preemption law is repealed or unless the state passes the same restrictions statewide.

That admission is central to her criticism.

“So this law is for optics, I guess,” she said.

It is hard to miss her point. If a city writes a law and then includes language saying it cannot currently be enforced, residents are left wondering what the law is actually meant to do.

In practice, it may be less about immediate enforcement and more about pressure. Minneapolis leaders may be trying to send a message to state lawmakers, force a broader debate, or signal support for gun control groups.

But that approach also has a cost. It creates confusion for lawful gun owners, invites litigation, and lets elected officials claim action without actually changing what police can enforce.

Ordinance Or Resolution?

Liberty Doll also argued that Minneapolis chose the wrong legal vehicle if its goal was only to make a statement.

She said if the city had called the measure a resolution instead of an ordinance, it might have had firmer legal footing because the preemption law specifically refers to ordinances.

Instead, she said the city chose an ordinance, even though it already knew the measure could not operate under current law.

That distinction matters because resolutions are often used to express policy views without creating enforceable local law. Ordinances, by contrast, are generally written as laws with penalties attached.

Liberty Doll said that because it is only a city ordinance, the penalties would be misdemeanors. In her view, that makes the measure even more symbolic because those penalties would carry little to no prison time and would not make someone a prohibited person.

Still, symbolic laws can cause real trouble. Even an unenforceable ordinance can make residents unsure about what is legal, and it can put law enforcement in the awkward position of explaining why a law on the books cannot actually be used.

Gun Rights Group Expected To Sue

Liberty Doll said the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus has already vowed to sue Minneapolis if necessary, just as it did after St. Paul moved in a similar direction.

She predicted the ordinance would be challenged in court and “completely smacked down.”

Whether Minneapolis leaders see that as a risk or a feature is part of the larger political question. Sometimes these local laws are passed with full knowledge that litigation will follow, because the court fight itself becomes part of the public message.

That may appeal to supporters who want cities to push the limits of state law, but it also creates frustration among residents who expect local governments to focus on enforceable policy.

From a practical standpoint, the more useful debate may be over what cities can actually do to reduce violence without writing laws they know cannot stand on their own. That is harder than passing a headline-friendly ordinance, but it is also more likely to matter.

A Fight Headed For Court

Liberty Doll framed the Minneapolis ordinance as part of a wider trend in which local and state officials keep trying to restrict common firearms and accessories, even when legal barriers are obvious.

She said Minneapolis is “wasting time and tax dollars” on a measure that cannot currently be enforced and will likely end up in court.

The ordinance may still have political value for its supporters, especially if the goal is to pressure the state into passing broader gun restrictions. But Liberty Doll’s point is that the city appears to know exactly where the legal wall is and chose to run into it anyway.

For gun owners, that means the fight is not just over what Minneapolis passed. It is over whether cities can use symbolic ordinances to create confusion, drive litigation, and push state lawmakers toward restrictions that do not yet have the force of law.

Liberty Doll said she expects to revisit the issue once the court fight begins. For now, her view is clear: Minneapolis passed a gun control ordinance it cannot enforce, and the city knows it.