Edina’s Unconstitutional And Illegal Gun Ordinance Push Is Dangerous Overreach
Under Minnesota Statute § 471.633, cities are prohibited from regulating “the possession, ownership, transfer, carrying, or transportation of firearms.”
The Edina City Council has decided to wade into a fight it cannot win—and taxpayers may be the ones who end up footing the bill. In its latest attempt to “take a stand” on gun safety, the council has directed city staff to draft a local firearms ordinance. The problem? Minnesota law already makes such an ordinance flatly illegal.
Under Minnesota Statute § 471.633, cities are prohibited from regulating “the possession, ownership, transfer, carrying, or transportation of firearms.” That’s not ambiguous. It’s a clear statement from the Legislature that firearm policy is a matter of statewide concern, not something for every city to rewrite as it pleases. The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus has rightfully reminded Edina of that fact—warning that if the council goes through with its plan, the group will file suit immediately.
Let’s be real: this isn’t about public safety. It’s about politics. City leaders know the ordinance won’t survive a legal challenge, but they want to signal their progressive bona fides and score headlines about “doing something.” Meanwhile, law-abiding citizens who exercise their Second Amendment rights are once again treated as the problem.
No one disputes that violent crime is a serious issue. But punishing or restricting responsible gun owners in Edina—people who have done nothing wrong—doesn’t make anyone safer. It just sends a message that constitutional rights are negotiable if a city council decides they don’t like them.
Even Edina’s own city attorney reportedly warned that passing such an ordinance would almost certainly be struck down in court. That means city staff will spend hours drafting and defending a policy that’s doomed from the start. They should be working on solutions to real problems, governing like adults and doing something meaningful, but no, they’d rather waste time and money on a losing cause, but that’s what Democrats do. When the inevitable lawsuit comes—and it will—residents will bear the cost. Legal fees could easily reach tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars, all for the sake of phony virtue signaling.
State preemption laws exist for a reason. They ensure that law-abiding gun owners aren’t forced to navigate a confusing patchwork of local regulations every time they cross a city line. Imagine driving from one suburb to another and suddenly becoming a criminal because your concealed-carry permit isn’t recognized by a neighboring town. That’s the chaos preemption prevents.
The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus is absolutely right to defend that principle. Uniform laws protect not only gun owners, but also law enforcement officers who need consistency when enforcing firearm statutes across jurisdictions.
If Edina’s leaders truly care about reducing gun violence, they should focus on enforcing existing laws and supporting law enforcement— not grandstanding against citizens who responsibly exercise their constitutional rights.
Edina’s proposal is a classic example of virtue signaling over governance. Instead of respecting the rule of law and protecting taxpayers, the council is chasing headlines at the expense of both. The Second Amendment is not a suggestion—it’s a constitutional guarantee. And in Minnesota, it’s backed up by state law that leaves no room for city-level gun control.