Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Gun Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Edina holds public hearing on contingent gun ordinance; no action tonight
Summary
Edina City Council held a town‑hall hearing on Jan. 6 on a contingent ordinance that would restrict assault‑style weapons and high‑capacity magazines if state preemption is lifted; speakers on both sides gave emotional testimony and the council will revisit the matter at its Jan. 20 meeting.
Edina officials held a packed public hearing on Jan. 6, 2026, on a proposed city ordinance that would ban assault‑style rifles, high‑capacity magazines, binary triggers and ghost guns — but only if the Minnesota Legislature lifts the state preemption that now bars most local firearm regulation.
City Attorney Dave Kendall told the council the state preemption statute (Minn. Stat. §471.633) “preempts all authority of cities to regulate firearms, ammunition, and their components,” leaving only local regulation of firearm discharge. He said the draft Edina ordinance is modeled on a Saint Paul ordinance and is written to be contingent: it would remain unenforceable unless and until the council passed a later resolution after any change in state law or a court decision allowing local regulation.
Supporters at the hearing — including parents, teachers, medical professionals, clergy and advocacy groups such as Moms Demand Action and Students Demand Action — described trauma from the Aug. 27 Annunciation Church and School shooting and urged council members to act. “That killer is guns,” said Sarah Paisley, a local Moms Demand Action leader and parent. Doctors who treated and testified about pediatric gun injuries and psychologists described both the physical damage from high‑velocity rounds and the long‑term psychological harm for children and families.
Opponents warned of legal and practical risks. Edina resident Dave Wright, who submitted a briefing memo for the record, said the ordinance would “raise Second Amendment concerns,” expose the city to costly litigation and could criminalize otherwise lawful residents if it were enforceable. Several speakers suggested resources would be better spent on enforcement of existing laws, mental‑health services and school safety programs.
Mayor Hovland and council members repeatedly emphasized that no ordinance would take immediate effect under current state law and that the proposed local law is written to take effect only if state preemption changes. The mayor reiterated the process rules for the hearing: three‑minute speaking slots, alternation of speakers, and an online comment period through midnight on Sunday, Jan. 11, via bettertogetheredina.org. The council did not vote on the ordinance Wednesday and will consider the item at its Jan. 20 regular meeting.
Procedural actions taken at the meeting included adoption of the published meeting agenda (motion moved by Council Member Jackson and seconded by McRaeggen) and a motion to adjourn (moved by Council Member Agnew and seconded by Council Member Pierce). No ordinance vote occurred.
What’s next: written public comments are being accepted through Jan. 11, 2026; the council plans a follow‑up discussion and any potential formal action at its Jan. 20 meeting.
Authorities referenced in the hearing include Minnesota Statute §471.633 (state preemption of local firearm regulation).
