Reporter Callan Gray of KSTP 5 Eyewitness News says St. Paul has now become the first city in Minnesota to pass an “assault-style weapons” ban.
Gray notes the city is part of a coalition of 17 cities that pledged to adopt similar bans. St. Paul is simply the first one to move its ordinance across the finish line.
According to Gray’s report, the city council voted unanimously to approve the ordinance. One council member is shown saying, “Our residents deserve to feel safe in our parks, our libraries, our schools.”
Gray explains the ordinance bans possession, transport, storing, keeping, or carrying any assault weapon, large-capacity magazine, or binary trigger within city limits. It also bans guns in “sensitive places” like parks, libraries, and recreation centers, and requires posted signs to notify people of the restrictions.
Council President Rebecca Noecker, interviewed by Gray, makes clear there are no carve-outs. When asked if this is a blanket ban on binary triggers and assault weapons, Noecker answers, “Yeah, this is a blanket ban… and we are prepared to defend this ordinance.”
Interestingly, Gray notes the mayor’s office had previously talked about an amendment aimed at banning public possession rather than ownership in general. But she says no amendments were actually introduced before the vote.
That gap between the mayor’s intent and the council president’s “blanket ban” language is one of the first signs that this move is more about political messaging than careful policy design.
A Ban That Can’t Be Enforced – At Least For Now
Gray also points out the key legal problem: Minnesota has a state preemption law.
Under that law, local governments are not allowed to pass their own gun bans. So right now, Gray says, the St. Paul ordinance is not enforceable.
City leaders know this. Gray reports they are openly calling on the state legislature to either lift preemption or pass a statewide “assault weapon” ban. If that happens, she says, violations of the St. Paul ordinance would become a misdemeanor.
Noecker tells Gray the council is “counting on the vast majority of people who are going to see the law and who are going to comply with it.” She also admits they don’t yet know whether they’ll actually “have the enforcement tools” once the ordinance can take effect.
Outside a city library, Gray interviews residents who say they support the move. One man, who identifies himself as a permit holder, tells her, “I’m for it… there’s really no need to have assault weapons.” Another person says they’d like to see action at the state level.
From Gray’s reporting, the city council clearly wants to “send a signal” and show they are “ready to go” if state law changes. But the fact that they passed a sweeping gun ban they cannot legally enforce right now sets the stage for the criticism that follows.
William Kirk Calls It A “Very Expensive Anti-Gun Virtue Signal”
Attorney William Kirk, president of Washington Gun Law, takes St. Paul’s ordinance head-on in his video titled Minnesota’s Very Expensive Anti-Gun Virtue Signal.
Kirk tells his viewers not to “freak out,” because under current Minnesota law, the ordinance is “not even worth the paper it’s printed on.” He explains that Minnesota, like 42 other states, has a strong state preemption statute.
Kirk reads from Minnesota Statute 471.633, which “preempts all authority” of cities, counties, and other local governments to regulate firearms, ammunition, or their components—except in very narrow situations like regulating discharge or mirroring state law. Any local rule inconsistent with that section, he notes, “is void.”
He then describes what St. Paul says its ordinance does: banning public possession of assault weapons, large-capacity magazines, and binary triggers; requiring all firearms to have serial numbers; creating new “sensitive places”; and requiring signage. But he points out the ordinance’s own language ties enforcement to a future repeal or amendment of state preemption.
Kirk calls that the “magic phrase.” In his view, the city knows perfectly well that right now they have no legal authority to enforce the ban.
He cites a list of other cases where local officials tried to defy preemption and lost: Tucson’s mandatory-destruction rule for confiscated guns, Philadelphia’s attempt to expand sensitive places, Boulder’s assault-weapon ban, and Edmonds, Washington’s safe-storage ordinance. In each case, Kirk says, courts struck the laws down.
The Edmonds case, Bass v. City of Edmonds, is his big warning for Minnesotans. Kirk notes the city lost in trial court, in the appeals court, and unanimously in the Washington Supreme Court – 0–13 across all judges – while racking up about $700,000 in legal fees. All, he says, “for a virtue signal.”
Kirk’s argument is simple: St. Paul’s ordinance may feel good to some voters, but it will cost taxpayers real money to defend something that state law already makes void.
From a constitutional standpoint, his point about preemption makes a lot of sense. If every city can invent its own gun code, gun owners could cross an invisible city line and suddenly become criminals. Preemption is supposed to prevent that patchwork.
Armed Attorneys Say It’s A Fear-Based Strategy
Gun-rights attorneys Richard Hayes and Edwin Walker, hosts of the Armed Attorneys channel, also dig into the St. Paul ordinance while discussing the broader Supreme Court case Grant v. Rovella about Connecticut’s “assault-weapon” ban.
Hayes and Walker explain that Minnesota actually has strong statewide protections through preemption. In theory, they say, that means gun laws should be uniform no matter whether someone is in St. Paul, Minneapolis, or a small town.
But they tell viewers that a coalition of cities, including St. Paul, Minneapolis, Bloomington, and Minnetonka, has decided to intentionally pass local bans anyway. Walker says these cities are acting “in coalition” to push for a repeal of preemption by creating political pressure on the state legislature.
Hayes and Walker play a clip from the St. Paul council meeting. In it, city leaders say openly that this ordinance is about showing they are “lined up at the door” and ready if the legislature “opens the door” to new gun bans.
Hayes notes there was also a separate interview where Council President Noecker said the quiet part out loud. He recounts her saying the city is passing the ordinance in the hope that St. Paul citizens “will read it and will comply with it.”
Walker cuts in and calls it exactly what he believes it is: “fear-based legislation.”
They argue the council knows the ordinance conflicts with state preemption and is likely unenforceable. But by writing it into the city code and posting signs, Hayes says they are banking on people complying out of fear of “getting jammed up,” even if a prosecution might not stand in court.
Walker calls it a “disgusting way to run your city.” He says it shows “no respect for state law” and no concern for the position it puts ordinary, law-abiding gun owners in.
What Hayes and Walker are really highlighting is a psychological tactic. If you can’t legally enforce the rule, you might still get compliance just by scaring people into thinking you can. That’s a powerful criticism, because it moves the debate from gun policy into basic questions of honesty and government ethics.
The Bigger Second Amendment Fight In The Background
While they’re talking about St. Paul, Hayes and Walker remind viewers that a much bigger Second Amendment fight is now in front of the U.S. Supreme Court.
They focus on Grant v. Rovella, a petition backed by the Second Amendment Foundation challenging Connecticut’s long-standing “assault-weapon” law. Hayes notes the petition argues that AR-15–style rifles are among “the most popular guns in America,” with an estimated 20–30 million in circulation.
On their show, Hayes quotes one line from the petition: “If the most popular rifle in the country is not in common use, it is hard to see what that phrase could possibly mean.” He even highlights an analogy comparing AR-15s to Ford F-150s – saying there may be more AR-style rifles in the U.S. than America’s most popular pickup.
Walker explains that under Supreme Court cases like District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the key question is whether firearms are in “common use” for lawful purposes. If they are, he says, blanket bans become very hard to justify.
They also criticize the Second Circuit for sidestepping Bruen and leaning on the old “dangerous and unusual” standard to uphold Connecticut’s law. Hayes argues the Supreme Court will eventually have to step in and settle whether semi-automatic rifles and standard-capacity magazines can be banned at all.
Seen through that lens, what St. Paul is doing is part of a bigger national pattern. Local and state officials keep passing new bans on common firearms, hoping courts will either uphold them or drag their feet long enough for the political win to stick.
Why This Minnesota Fight Matters Beyond St. Paul
Taken together, Callan Gray’s reporting, William Kirk’s legal analysis, and the commentary from Richard Hayes and Edwin Walker paint a clear picture.
St. Paul’s ordinance doesn’t change the fact that Minnesota gun owners remain protected by a strong state preemption law – for now. But it does signal that a bloc of cities is willing to ignore that framework to create political pressure and social fear.
From one side, city leaders like Noecker argue they’re tired of “inaction” and want to be “as strong and as clear” as possible about limiting so-called assault weapons. They say residents deserve to feel safe in parks, libraries, and schools, and they see this ordinance as a moral statement.
From the other side, critics like Kirk, Hayes, and Walker see a very different story. They see a city council knowingly passing an ordinance that conflicts with state law, hoping citizens will quietly comply, and leaving taxpayers on the hook for lawsuits they are almost certain to lose if preemption is ever tested.
What makes this so interesting is how much of the fight now lives in the gray area between law on the books and law in practice. Even when an ordinance is technically void, it can still shape behavior, chill lawful conduct, and set the stage for future political battles.
In that sense, calling it an “expensive anti-gun virtue signal,” as William Kirk does, isn’t just a slogan. It’s a warning that symbolic laws can still have very real costs – both for wallets and for rights.
Growing up in the Pacific Northwest, John developed a love for the great outdoors early on. With years of experience as a wilderness guide, he’s navigated rugged terrains and unpredictable weather patterns. John is also an avid hunter and fisherman who believes in sustainable living. His focus on practical survival skills, from building shelters to purifying water, reflects his passion for preparedness. When he’s not out in the wild, you can find him sharing his knowledge through writing, hoping to inspire others to embrace self-reliance.
