Minnesota’s Binary Trigger Ban Struck Down, Doubt Cast On Omnibus Bill
Judge Leonardo Castro of Ramsey County District Court struck down the state’s ban on binary trigger devices, deeming it unconstitutional
On August 18, 2025, a pivotal judicial decision in Minnesota challenged not only a specific firearm regulation but also the broader legislative process used in crafting large omnibus bills. Judge Leonardo Castro of Ramsey County District Court struck down the state’s ban on binary trigger devices, deeming it unconstitutional—not on substance, but due to how the law was enacted.
Binary triggers are firearm modifications that allow a semiautomatic weapon to fire one round upon pulling the trigger and another upon releasing it—effectively doubling the rate of fire.
In response to the tragic February 2024 shooting in Burnsville, where a perpetrator used a binary-trigger-equipped firearm to kill two police officers and a paramedic, the Legislature included a ban on such devices in a 2024 omnibus tax bill.
The law banning binary triggers went into effect on January 1, 2025, but the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus filed suit earlier this year, arguing the ban violated the state Constitution’s mandate that each law must address only one subject, which must be clearly stated in its title.
Judge Castro agreed. While recognizing precedent that generally favors severing offending statutory language rather than invalidating entire bills, he specifically struck down only the binary trigger provision—not the entire omnibus bill—but issued a sharp denunciation of the legislative process:
“The 2024 Omnibus Bill violates the Single Subject and Title Clause, because, at best, it contains many non-germane parts, and at worst, has no identifiable common theme.”
“If there has ever been a bill without a common theme and where ‘all bounds of reason and restraint seem to have been abandoned,’ this is it.”
He cautioned that simply severing the offending provision may be insufficient to restore constitutional compliance and suggested that the public and businesses could face hundreds of additional lawsuits to excise more unconstitutional provisions piece by piece.
Political leaders reacted swiftly:
Republicans hailed the ruling as a win for transparency and a rebuke to “backroom deals.” Senate Minority Leader Mark Johnson called it a “win for accountability” and warned legislators against repeating such practices.
The DFL administration, including Gov. Tim Walz, the Attorney General’s office, and their allies, expressed strong opposition. A spokesperson for the governor reaffirmed the law’s intent to prevent tragedies and confirmed plans to appeal the decision.
Meanwhile, the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus celebrated the ruling as a landmark constitutional victory, emphasizing that Minnesota’s Constitution—not backroom legislative maneuvering—should govern how laws are enacted.
Although the ruling targets only the binary trigger provision, it carries broader significance. By raising alarms about the constitutional integrity of omnibus legislation, Judge Castro’s decision invites challenges to other provisions contained in the sprawling 2024 tax bill—from paid leave changes to ride-sharing rules and child tax credits.
If his ruling is upheld on appeal or leads to further litigation, it could reshape how Minnesota lawmakers approach large, multi-subject bills moving forward. In essence, this decision may be seen as a judicial wake-up call, urging a return to more focused, transparent lawmaking.
