Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz is facing a wave of backlash from his own constituents after unveiling an aggressive gun control package that critics across the political spectrum are calling tone deaf and politically reckless.
The proposal, announced this week (reported via CBS), includes a ban on so-called military-style assault weapons, restrictions on high-capacity magazines, new rules targeting ghost guns and binary triggers, and a first-of-its-kind firearm liability insurance requirement. It would also impose a 10 percent tax on handguns and an 11 percent tax on rifles, shotguns, and ammunition. Additional provisions mandate locked storage, require lost or stolen firearms to be reported within 48 hours, and introduce new enforcement mechanisms.
Walz has framed the package as a comprehensive effort to curb gun violence without infringing on Second Amendment rights. But in online forums and community discussions, many Minnesotans are not buying it.
In a popular Minnesota Reddit thread reacting to the announcement, one user summed up the frustration bluntly: “What the hell, Tim.” Another called the proposal “an amazingly bad and tone deaf idea.”
Minnesota has endured a turbulent year marked by high-profile shootings, federal law enforcement operations in Minneapolis, and heightened political tension. For some residents, that broader climate makes additional firearm restrictions feel disconnected from reality.
One commenter wrote, “Blue states disarming their citizens in the face of fascist assault is idiotic at best and collaboration at worst.”
Another added, “This is a bad call overall, given the attacks on MN dems leading up to midterms.”
A recurring theme in the discussion was distrust of law enforcement and concern over government overreach. Several users referenced past no knock warrants and federal immigration enforcement activity as reasons they believe personal firearm ownership is more necessary now, not less.
“After the showing of local and federal law enforcement and the weak response of elected officials, I can only feel my safety is affordable by myself, my family and hopefully my neighbor,” one user wrote.
Even self-described progressives and independents expressed dismay. A gun-owning independent who said their firearms are locked in a heavy-duty safe criticized what they see as piling on new costs and burdens for law-abiding residents. “Liability insurance, ammunition tax, warrantless searches?” the commenter asked. “Makes total sense.”
Others questioned the political strategy behind the push in a divided Legislature, where Republicans have already signaled strong resistance. “Dems when they’re ahead in the polls ‘Let’s try to do the dumbest stuff possible to scare off our newfound support,’” one user wrote, capturing a sentiment echoed across dozens of replies.
There were dissenting voices in the thread, including at least one commenter who said they had spoken to a Trump voter supportive of stricter gun laws. But the dominant tone was frustration, with multiple users accusing Democratic leadership of misreading the moment.
“Whose side are the dems on here? Maybe read the room,” one post read.
Walz has said he is open to compromise, calling the proposal a starting point for discussion. Whether that outreach will calm critics remains to be seen. For now, at least online, many Minnesotans appear unconvinced that sweeping new gun restrictions are the answer, or that this is the right moment to pursue them.
