The Minnesota Court of Appeals on Tuesday struck down the state's ban on binary triggers, ruling that Democratic lawmakers violated the state constitution when they slipped the firearms restriction into a 2024 tax-and-spending bill at the tail end of the legislative session.
Two courts have now rejected the ban on the same grounds: it violated Minnesota's Single Subject and Title Clause, which requires that legislation stick to one topic clearly described in its title. The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus brought the challenge, won at the district court level, and won again on appeal.
Neither Gov. Tim Walz nor Democratic Attorney General Keith Ellison responded to requests for comment from the Daily Caller News Foundation, which first reported the ruling. The silence is notable given that Walz has made gun control a centerpiece of his current legislative agenda, pushing an assault weapons ban that already failed to pass the state House of Representatives this session.
The core of the case is straightforward. In 2024, Democrats in the Minnesota Legislature inserted a ban on binary triggers into a sprawling omnibus spending bill. They did it at the end of the session, a familiar tactic in state legislatures where controversial provisions get folded into must-pass budget packages to avoid standalone scrutiny and debate.
Binary triggers, patented by Franklin Armory under the name "Binary Firing System," fire one round when the trigger is pulled and a second round when it is released. They can be installed on various firearms, including AR-15 platforms and Glock pistols.
The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus argued the ban had no business inside a tax-and-spending bill and sued on constitutional grounds. The district court agreed and invalidated the ban. The state appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed.
Two courts. Same answer. The legislature broke its own rules.
Bryan Strawser, chair of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, framed the ruling as a rebuke of legislative gamesmanship. In a statement released from St. Paul, Strawser said:
"The Walz administration and anti-gun legislators tried to sneak a firearms ban into an omnibus bill where it didn't belong. The district court said no. The Court of Appeals said no. Minnesota's Constitution, not legislative gamesmanship, controls how laws get made in this state, and Minnesota gun owners just proved it twice."
Rob Doar, president of the Minnesota Gun Owners Law Center, which represented the caucus in the litigation, went further. He cast the decision as a direct warning to lawmakers who might try the same maneuver again.
"Today's ruling is a warning to every legislator who thinks the single-subject clause is optional. Two courts have now told the Legislature that you cannot bury gun control provisions inside unrelated bills and call it lawmaking. If anti-gun lawmakers try this again in 2026 or beyond, we will be back in court, and we will win again."
That promise matters. Single-subject clauses exist in most state constitutions precisely to prevent this kind of legislative sleight of hand. When lawmakers bundle unrelated provisions together, voters and even fellow legislators lose the ability to evaluate each policy on its merits. Courts exist to enforce that structural safeguard, and in this case, they did.
The binary trigger ruling lands in the middle of a rough stretch for Walz's gun-control agenda. His push for an assault weapons ban, a far broader restriction, already failed to clear the state House during the current session. The appellate loss adds a second defeat on firearms policy in short order.
It also fits a broader pattern of Democratic officials running into institutional pushback. In Colorado, Democrats recently censured their own governor over the commutation of Tina Peters's sentence, a rare case of a party holding its own executive accountable.
Minnesota's situation is different in form but similar in substance: a Democratic-led government pushed a policy through procedural shortcuts, and the judiciary, not the opposing party, called foul.
The tactic of burying gun restrictions inside omnibus spending bills is not unique to Minnesota. Legislatures across the country use massive end-of-session packages to move provisions that might not survive a standalone vote. The practice is bipartisan, but the constitutional guardrails exist for a reason. When a firearms ban gets stitched into a tax bill, the public has no realistic opportunity to weigh in on the specific policy before it becomes law.
That is precisely the kind of maneuver single-subject clauses are designed to prevent. And that is precisely what two Minnesota courts found happened here.
The Minnesota ruling arrives at a moment when the Democratic Party faces internal fractures on multiple fronts. A Pennsylvania Supreme Court justice recently left the party, citing its tolerance of antisemitism, a high-profile departure that signaled deepening institutional discontent within Democratic ranks.
Meanwhile, at the federal level, an Arizona Democrat introduced impeachment articles against a Trump administration official, illustrating the party's continued appetite for dramatic political confrontations even as its own policy agenda faces setbacks in courtrooms and state capitols.
In Minnesota, the setback is particularly pointed because the legislature had the votes to pass a standalone binary trigger ban if it wanted to. Democrats held the majority. They chose instead to avoid a separate debate and roll the restriction into a budget package. The courts noticed.
Several questions remain unanswered. The formal case name and docket number for the appellate ruling have not been widely published. It is unclear whether the Walz administration or Ellison's office will seek further review. The specific bill number for the 2024 omnibus legislation that contained the ban has not been identified in public reporting on the ruling.
What is clear is that the binary trigger ban is dead, struck down by two courts on constitutional grounds that have nothing to do with the Second Amendment and everything to do with how laws get made. The Single Subject and Title Clause is a structural protection for every citizen, regardless of where they stand on firearms. It ensures that legislation is transparent, that each provision faces its own scrutiny, and that lawmakers cannot hide unpopular measures inside unrelated bills.
Democrats in St. Paul tried to skip that process. Gun owners took them to court. And the courts, twice, said the constitution still applies, even when the cause is popular in the capitol hallways.
If you have to sneak your policy into a bill where it doesn't belong, maybe the problem isn't the constitution. Maybe it's the policy.
