Though not a California matter, we thought it was important to share a recent challenge to a firearm component restriction out of Minnesota, as it relates to the current California litigation addressing California’s expanded defintion of “assault weapon” through a similar challengable practice. In a significant legal battle, the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus v. Walz case, filed on February 12, 2025, in Ramsey County District Court (Case No. 62-CV-25-1083), contests the constitutionality of a Minnesota law banning Binary® triggers. The lawsuit, spearheaded by the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus (MGOC) and supported by three anonymous individuals, targets the state’s 2024 Omnibus Tax Bill, arguing that its passage violated Minnesota’s constitutional single-subject clause.
Case Background
The challenged law, H.F. 5247 (Chapter 127, 2024 Minnesota Session Laws), is a sprawling 1,400-page omnibus bill passed on May 19, 2024, and signed into law by Governor Tim Walz on May 24, 2024. Known as the “Jumbo Omnibus Bill,” it encompasses diverse provisions, from tax policies to health insurance mandates, worker classification rules, combative sports regulations, electric bicycle requirements, and, notably, a ban on binary triggers in Article 36. The binary trigger ban, effective January 1, 2025, amends Minnesota Statutes § 609.67, subdivision 1(d), to classify Binary® triggers as “trigger activators,” making their possession, ownership, or use a felony punishable by up to 20 years in prison or a $35,000 fine, with no grandfather clause for prior owners.
Binary® triggers are firearm accessories for semi-automatic weapons that allow two rounds to be fired per trigger cycle—one on the pull and one on the release. The MGOC argues that including this ban in a predominantly tax-focused bill constitutes “logrolling,” an unconstitutional practice of bundling unrelated provisions to avoid proper legislative scrutiny and public input, violating Article IV, Section 17 of the Minnesota Constitution, which mandates that laws embrace only one subject clearly expressed in their title.
Parties Involved
The plaintiffs, represented by the Upper Midwest Law Center attorneys James V. F. Dickey, Doug Seaton, Alexandra Howell, and Austin Lysy, include the MGOC, a nonprofit advocating for gun owners’ rights, and three anonymous individuals harmed by the ban. The defendants are:
Legal Claims and Relief Sought
The MGOC’s complaint seeks a declaratory judgment that the omnibus bill is unconstitutional due to its violation of the single-subject clause. The plaintiffs argue that the bill’s disparate topics—taxes, abortion coverage, gun regulations, and more—lack a unifying theme, rendering the entire bill or at least the binary trigger ban invalid. They request:
The state defendants counter that the MGOC lacks standing, the challenge is a non-justiciable political question, the lawsuit is time-barred, and, if any violation is found, only the binary trigger ban should be severed, not the entire bill.
Procedural Developments
The case, assigned to Judge Leonardo Castro, saw its first hearing on May 13, 2025, addressing motions to dismiss and for summary judgment. The court ordered in-camera affidavits by May 23, 2025, to support MGOC’s associational standing. On June 4, 2025, Judge Castro ruled that MGOC has standing, allowing the case to proceed. Supplemental briefs were filed by the state and Hennepin County on June 28, 2025, with MGOC’s reply submitted by July 5, 2025. A merits hearing occurred on July 29, 2025, where both sides argued summary judgment and dismissal motions.
As of July 29, 2025, the court is deliberating on these motions. The binary trigger ban remains in effect, impacting owners who must dispose of these devices or face felony charges.
Implications
This case tests the boundaries of Minnesota’s single-subject clause, a constitutional safeguard against legislative overreach through omnibus bills. A ruling in favor of MGOC could invalidate the binary trigger ban or the entire omnibus bill, setting a precedent for stricter adherence to single-subject requirements. For now, gun owners in Minnesota face uncertainty as the ban remains enforceable pending the court’s decision. The MGOC, supported by its affiliated 501(c)(3), the Minnesota Gun Owners Support Fund, continues to rally public and financial support for its legal efforts, emphasizing the broader implications for Second Amendment rights and legislative transparency.
California Implications
The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus v. Walz (2025) case, challenging a Binary®trigger ban within a 1,400-page omnibus tax bill for violating Minnesota’s single-subject rule, finds a parallel in California’s Franklin Armory Title 1 litigation, where Senate Bill 118 (2020) banned the Title 1 firearm within a public safety budget trailer bill. California’s single-subject rule, under Article IV, Section 9, requires statutes to embrace one subject. The California Rifle and Pistol Associatioin’s claim of “backroom politics” in S.B. 118’s passage suggests logrolling, akin to Harbor v. Deukmejian, 43 Cal. 3d 1078, 742 P.2d 1290 (1987), where an unrelated provision invalidated a bill.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.