House panel clears bill to remove duty-to-retreat language after prolonged debate and failed amendments

The House Public Safety Committee on Feb. 26 voted to re‑refer House File 13 to the general register after extensive testimony and debate over Minnesota’s self‑defense standard and a recent state Supreme Court decision.

House File 13, introduced by Representative Brad Bliss, would amend Minnesota’s self‑defense statute to make clear that a person “may use reasonable force under circumstances described in paragraph A, clause 3, regardless of the reasonability [sic] of possibility of retreat to avoid danger exists.” Bliss and supporters said the change is intended to reverse a high‑court interpretation they described as imposing a duty to retreat before using nonlethal force.

Supporters included pro‑gun organizations and individual testifiers who argued the current case law is confusing and that the statute should be clarified so that reasonable defensive actions are judged under the ordinary “reasonableness” standard. Rob Doerr of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus and Brian Ghosh, speaking for the National Rifle Association, testified in support and urged lawmakers to clarify the law. Doerr said, “Minnesota self defense law is a mess,” and called for legislative clarity.

Opponents, including Protect Minnesota, Giffords (Gabby Giffords’ gun‑safety organization), Moms Demand Action and community advocates, urged the committee to reject the bill. Maggie Emery of Protect Minnesota testified that “This bill would legalize unnecessary violence, increase gun deaths and exacerbate already existing racial disparities,” and cited research she said links similar laws to higher homicide rates and racially disparate outcomes.

The committee considered two amendments during the hearing. Amendment A1 (safe and secure storage), introduced by Representative Hollins and debated at length, sought to impose enhanced secure‑storage requirements and make violations a gross misdemeanor in some circumstances; the amendment failed on a roll call (8 ayes, 10 nays). Amendment A2 (a 48‑hour lost-or-stolen reporting requirement) was offered by Representative Pinto and also failed on roll call (8 ayes, 10 nays). Committee discussion included prosecutors and members describing the practical difficulty of proving knowledge in some loss/theft scenarios and concerns about overly broad application of storage mandates.

On final disposition the committee voted to re‑refer House File 13 to the general register by roll call (10 ayes, 8 nays). Committee members split along varying lines: some said the courts are the correct venue for fact‑specific determinations; others said the statute should be clarified by the Legislature to restore what they described as the original intent of the law.

Ending: House File 13 moves forward to the general register for further floor consideration; the committee record includes extensive testimony from both sides and two failed amendments.