Proposed Semi-Automatic Rifle and Magazine Ban: What SF 4290 and SF 3655 Could Mean for MN Gun Owners

As of mid-March 2026, two major pieces of gun control legislation SF 4290 and SF 3655 are gaining attention at the Minnesota Capitol. Both proposals aim to significantly restrict the possession, transfer, and ownership of certain semi-automatic firearms and magazines holding more than ten rounds. Recently, SF 3655 advanced out of the Senate Judiciary and Public Safety Committee on a 6–3 party-line vote and is now headed to Senate Finance for further consideration.

For gun owners across Minnesota, these bills represent some of the most sweeping firearm restrictions proposed in the state in decades. At River Valley Arms & Ammo, we believe it’s important for our customers, community members, and the entire #RVAANation to understand what’s being proposed and to make their voices heard.

What the Proposed Bills Would Do

Both SF 4290 and SF 3655 revolve around the same core concept: banning what lawmakers describe as “semiautomatic military-style assault weapons” along with magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds.

Under the language of these bills, a wide range of commonly owned firearms would fall under the prohibition. This includes many rifles that are currently legal and widely used for lawful purposes such as sport shooting, hunting, and home defense.

According to bill summaries and analysis from the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, the legislation would:

• Ban the possession, sale, and transfer of certain semi-automatic rifles defined as “military-style assault weapons.”

• Ban magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds, often referred to as “large-capacity magazines.”

• Create criminal penalties for violations, potentially including felony charges.

The definition of prohibited firearms is broad and includes numerous named models as well as firearms with certain features such as detachable magazines, pistol grips, folding stocks, or flash suppressors.

Many gun owners and industry observers point out that these criteria could encompass a significant portion of modern semi-automatic rifles currently in circulation.

What Happens to Current Owners?

One of the most controversial aspects of the legislation is how it would affect individuals who already legally own these firearms.

Under the proposals, current owners would not necessarily be allowed to freely keep or transfer their firearms without additional government oversight. Instead, the legislation includes strict requirements such as:

• Applying for and obtaining a certificate from the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA) to possess the firearm

• Periodically renewing that certification

• Complying with detailed storage and reporting requirements

Failure to comply with the process could force owners to surrender the firearm, permanently disable it, or remove it from the state.

According to analysis by the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, obtaining this certificate could also require owners to consent to warrantless inspections of their premises by law enforcement to ensure compliance with the law’s storage and possession requirements. In other words, by applying for the certificate needed to keep your legally owned firearm, you may be agreeing to allow government officials to search your property without a traditional warrant requirement.

Critics argue that this raises serious concerns related to both the Second Amendment and Fourth Amendment, particularly regarding protections against unreasonable searches.

Additionally, some versions of the legislation would significantly restrict where these firearms could be possessed, limiting them primarily to the owner’s property or licensed ranges.

The Debate Around the Bills

Supporters of the legislation argue that limiting access to certain firearms and magazine capacities could help reduce violent crime and mass shootings. Some lawmakers believe stricter regulation of firearms is a necessary step toward improving public safety.

Opponents, including many gun owners, civil liberties advocates, and Second Amendment organizations, argue that the bills would punish law-abiding citizens rather than criminals.

The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus has been particularly vocal in its opposition, stating that semi-automatic rifles are among the most commonly owned firearms in America and are used lawfully every day for self-defense, recreation, and competitive shooting.

They also argue that banning firearms in “common use” raises constitutional concerns under Supreme Court decisions such as District of Columbia v. Heller and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which affirm protections for commonly owned firearms used for lawful purposes.

If you want to hear firsthand testimony on the issue, we encourage you to watch this presentation from a Minnesota gun owner speaking to lawmakers: