Committee on State and Local Government - Mar 26, 2026

Senator Swazinski and Mr. Kelleher. Mr. Kelleher, who. I mean, you've got the ability now to contract with local units of government. Who do you want to contract with that you can't? Now, Mr. Keller, Mr.

Senator Dresskowski.

Chair, Senator Dreskowski. We also contract with the lower Sioux Indian community to operate the lower Sioux agency historic site we have for a few years. Similarly could make an argument that they do history through their tribal historic preservation office, but that doesn't fall within this language.

So, Mr.

Mr. Keller, you tell me you're operating outside of the law right now, Mr. Keller. Mr.

Senator Draskowski. It's in a bit of a gray area. That's why we're here right now.

Well, Mr. Chair, this is a bill to. And I've seen this other times in state government, but we have an agency that's violating the law and they're bringing a bill before us to legalize what they're violating right now. I don't know that that is what we want the executive branch to be doing. I don't know that that's what we want our government agencies to be doing. I think they should get permission to do things before they go out and do things and so that they do them according to the law. That's not what we're seeing here. Mr. Keller or Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Kelleher, how long have you been violating the law in this way?

Well, we're both Steve, so I can see your. So that might be for our similar. Well, I just want to. Before Mr. Kelleher answers, I.

He's just. Senator Jaskowski's comment. I mean, they're not breaking the law. He's concerned about operating in the gray area. And he came forward to say. To prevent any misconstrued interpretation at some point. So he's. We should be applauding the agency for coming forward at this point. So. Because they don't want to break any laws because of the gray area that he referenced.

Oh, I had a question for Mr. Kelleher. Should I repeat it? Mr. Kelleher.

Mr.—

Senator Draskowski, as mentioned, we believe that the language creates some gray area. I wouldn't say that we're breaking the law. I think you could make an argument that the contract with the Lower Sioux Indian community could be construed as a local historical society because they take care of history for their community. You could make that argument. But I think some clarity in simply saying that we can contract with different types of organizations and leaving that a little more open would clear up that gray area.

Well, thank you, Mr. Chair and Mr. Keller. Senator Swaczynski, I mean, I'm reading the law here in your bill. Right now the historical society has the ability in law to contract with county, municipality or a county or local historical society. Now, I don't know. I don't see historical or society in Lower Sioux community's name or in their mission and construe would be the right term. Mr. Keller, if that's what you're trying to make that into being potentially legal here. I don't see the Lower Sioux community being a historical society. Can you explain how they're a historical society? Is it in their name? I would say, Mr. Chair, that'd be my question. Is, is it in their name or is there something in their mission that demonstrates to you that they are local historical society?

Mr.

Senator Driscowski, there's no statutory definition of a local historical society. As far as I'm aware. The Lower Sioux community has a tribal historic preservation office within their organization. That's their part of their group that preserves their own history.

Each tribe has a tribal historic preservation office to preserve their own history. And that's a standard thing that those types of organizations do. It is confined to their organization. And that's their mission is to preserve their own history and share history.

Thank you, Mr.

So, Mr. Chair and Mr. Kelleher, so how long have you been contracting with the lower Sioux community, Mr. Keller?

Chair.

Senator Draskowski.

Is that a question, Senator Draskowski?

Senator Johnson. Stewart.

They don't.

Senator Matthews.

Mr. Keller?

Chair, Senator Matthews, Our operating budget is a combination of state general fund dollars and earned revenue admission fees to historic sites in the History center and donations from individuals and other various miscellaneous fees. So it's a combination of a variety of sources.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate that. And I think that with the, with the tax dollar aspect, even though it's a partial, I think the state does have an interest in making sure we know where that's being used and who it's going to and all of that. And so I would encourage, and I don't know if we can suggest an oral amendment right now. I think Senator Johnson, Stewart's correct that maybe we should change may to shall and then perhaps figure out what language needs to be for this tribal community, for this park and a nature center and things like that, rather than making it completely open ended. Right now. It's not just you that's getting These questions from me. Mr. Chair, you were there in energy yesterday when Commerce wanted to contract with non governmental entities. And I had to drill down on them and say, who do you mean by that? What do you mean by that? Who are they going to be? I think Minnesotans in a place right now where we deserve to have those answers. So I'd encourage us to work on maybe tightening the language or adjusting it to what you need rather than removing this altogether.

I would. I've worked, I visited Minnesota historic sites for my entire adult life and there more students visit them than probably come to the Capitol. And I respect Mr. Kelleher and the institution that he works with impeccably. And I'm sure they've all, they've done their due diligence in making sure they brought to us a bill that was as perfect as they could come up with. And so I have full admiration for the agency and Mr. Kelleher's work. But he was going to say something I hope he's not going to contradict.

Thank you.

That's right.

Thank you, Chair. Just so I'm kind of clear, so how I'm reading it is if we change this to must contract, that tells me that everything they do has to go to outside entities and they can't be done in house. Am I interpreting that correctly?

I would have to.

Yeah. And thank you, Mr.

And I think there's probably a way to bridge this gap. Right. Because in a former life, I actually ran one of those contracts for one of your local outstate sites. So understanding the need for. Well, realistically, you. I don't know what the percentage is of the sites that you run, but I know that, you know, there are some sites in outstate Minnesota that really do not have much coverage. You know, whether it's mowing the yards or taking care of picking tables or whatever it may be. I think there is a way to allow you to do what you want to do with whether it's a tribal agency or a local government agency. But also there is a formal process in the state of Minnesota that already exists through the Department of Administration for certified contractors as well. If you were to come back or have some sort of amendment that said, hey, we can. Because I think, honestly, striking the language you have in here is probably doing a little bit of a disservice, because that would probably be at least sitting at the table here would be. My primary intent is to work with those local governments, and whether that includes tribal governments or not, that's fine. But then if you go, if that process is exhausted, say, then you shall. It's not a may at that point, but at that point, then it's a shall have a contract with, you know, someone from the Department of Administration certified list that have been, you know, well intended contractors. I think that's maybe because even the other day, and thank you for coming me the other day. Even the other day when we talked about it, in my mind, I'm like, yeah, that does kind of leave it wide open at the end. There's probably a way to tighten this up and probably make everybody at the table happy.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm pleased that it's going to be laid over and have the ability maybe for the author and other members of the committee to work on it. And Mr. Keller, I don't dislike the historical Society. You guys do some really good stuff. I just get frustrated when I see government entities or quasi government entities come before us that are operating outside of the law. And members. We can't have government doing what they want to do and then coming back to us and having us basically validate what they did or ratify. Mr. Chair. What they did and have been doing, because then the tail is wagging the dog. The way our government is designed to is that we are supposed to give them the authority to do things. And if. And back to senator Johnson Stewart's comments. You know, we haven't given them. We actually. In the way this statute is originally written, we granted them the authority to do that. That's why it says may, because we extended them the authority to contract in addition to their hired staff that they have. And so that's what they're looking at here. They're saying, well, we would like to contract with everybody or anybody or whoever we want. And that's what the bill says. Right now I'm in pursuit of accountability for the money that the taxpayers in Minnesota spend, not only here, but other places, so that our agencies and organizations that we have law written for and their guidance are actually following our law. And if we have one example or two example, or maybe there might be more than this. I know there's more than this. Unfortunately, it's a sad day in Minnesota. But of agencies that are operating outside of the law, the more examples of that we have, the worse our situation gets and the more that those agencies will continue to do that if we continue to let that happen. So it's the accountability that I'm looking for here, and I agree. I think it could be rewritten, and I'm glad that it's going to be laid over. And thank you, Mr. Chair.

Senator Swadzinski, thank you for hearing the bill. Thank you for the lively debate. Senator Johnson. Stewart, I think you missed your calling as a lawyer. So your apprehension and not being one is duly noted. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, members, for hearing the bill.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair Zhang.

Committee, Senate File 4037 is a simple bill. It's a repealer. It would repeal Subdivision 5 under Minnesota Statute 462.35, which was written and adopted as part of the Municipal Planning act of 1965. And as this law was written, it was only applicable to cities of the first class. So there's 852 cities in the state that this does not apply to, and 4 to which it does. Subdivision 5 requires the written consent of two thirds of property owners within 100ft of their property before they can proceed with a rezoning from a residential zoning district to a commercial zoning district. The reason this should be repealed is that we've got small entrepreneurs who are running into this hurdle, and it's one more hurdle that is in their way and from proceeding with their plans. And it creates a bit of a equity issue for folks who don't have the time and resources to obtain signatures, including from property owners who may be difficult to locate. Sometimes it's private equity, and they have their headquarters in New Jersey, and you got to find your way there to get their signature. So this bill will not circumvent the typical legislative process within the cities, which normally involves public hearings. So think about those 852 towns that have their process. That's the same process as the remaining four, Rochester, Duluth, Minneapolis and St. Paul. They still have their public hearings. They have this extra hurdle. So this simply removes that additional step of obtaining signatures, which is unnecessary and burdensome. Removing or repealing this would enable practical development while maintaining the normal notice requirements and public input for zoning changes. So I hope you'll see this, as I do, a simple change that will remove, well, remove something that is not needed in statute.

Thank you, Senator Clark, our testimony. Mr. Wittenberg, please state your name for the record. And you may begin.

Thank you. With that, members, any questions or comments to the bill? Senator Clark, the final word?

One of the questions I had was why was this in there? And no one has been able to figure that out. It was done in 1965 and so nobody really knows why it was there. And so this is proven to really be cumbersome and not needed. So I thank you for your consideration.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Chair and members of the committee, this is Senate file 4149. Basically it's kind of a technical tightening up of some language regarding grants management at the Department of Administration. This clarifies that grants will be terminated for both individuals and entities when they're convicted of a criminal offense. It refines admins authority to more narrowly approve agency requested exceptions to policy requirements and provides further whistleblower protections in grant related cases. And I can turn it over to my test of fire for more technical.

Good afternoon Chair Zhang and members of the committee. For the record, my name is Betsy Hayes. I'm an Assistant Commissioner with the Department of administration. Senate File 4149 is what we consider our technical bill. It contains a handful of changes to the grants related statutes which are found in chapter 16B. One of the changes involves a citation correction and the others help improve grant administration. Just walking through quickly in section 1 on line 1.10 we clarify some language related to policy exceptions. This is generally exceptions will come in on an individual basis and not so much pertinent to the full grant program. In section two, we remove language that allows sharing, identifying information about a person who is reporting fraud or waste in the grants process. We want to remove any hindrances or provisions that may give an employee pause when they want to report something. So this change is made to promote and encourage reporting. And then section three, the change contains the citation correction that I mentioned. And Then finally, section 4 provides a definition of recipient that was not previously defined. And so this adds some help and clarity and captures the individuals within the organizations given that it's most likely the individuals that would be the named individuals in the conviction. So with that, we think these are helpful and practical changes and we thank you for your support and I'm happy to answer any questions you may have.

Senator Hammonson Yeager, I like your bill. Thank you.

Thank you for your attention.

Senator Skalski, I'm really grateful for this bill because I think it's one of these ways where we can take like a very succinct, tangible approach, really looking at what we can do inside the agencies to do what we can to address fraud very quickly.

All right, thank you. With that, Senator Pfau. Seeing. Seeing no further discussion. Senator, File 4149 is laid over for possible inclusion. And with that, I'll be handing the gavel over to Senator Gustafson to chair the committee as I present my bill.

Thank you, Madam Chair and members. Senate file 4367 would update Minnesota law to allow qualifying local governments like cities, housing and redevelopment authorities to responsibly use long term equity investments to modernize their types of investments they make. This bill will provide local government entities better, more flexible financial tools while assisting in addressing Minnesota's housing crisis, redevelop underused property and strengthen their tax base without increasing pressure on local taxpayers. By clarifying the permissible investments, this bill helps cities and HRAs put dormant capital to work in our communities while maintaining strong safeguards for public funds. And I have testifiers here that can go into further details on the mechanics of the bill.

Thank you Madam Chair and committee members. My name is Richard Koji Ski and I'm the political director for the Northern Midwest Regional Council of Carpenters. I'm here in strong support of Senate File 4367 and I'd like to thank Chair Zhang for carrying this bill for a couple of decades. Hundreds of union pension plans have invested a small amount of our portfolio in the Housing Investment Trust. We've gotten good returns while also benefiting from local Minnesota investments in housing projects right here at home. This unique effort has the potential to offer three key benefits. Good returns, private investments in badly needed local housing and construction jobs. This bill before you today simply allows some local cities and counties to invest in vehicles like the Housing Investment Trust if they choose to do so. We're in a housing crisis in Minnesota. We're nearly 100,000 units short and our average first time home buyer is over 40 years of age. This bill offers a unique market based effort that can be a part of the solution with very limited risk. Support for this bill stems from a resolution passed by the Minnesota Building Trades and we would appreciate your support as well. Thank you, Madam Chair.

We have another testifier. I'm sorry. If you could state your name for the record. Proceed.

Schools are not included in that measure.

able to speak today.

Senator Barr thank you, Madam Chair. I guess to the last testifier, where

whose funds are these to start with and where are they currently invested?

pensions and other public pensions. This measure will allow this certain subset

Senator Barr thank you Madam Chair. These are, you can just nod on this one if you want to. These are pension funds, right?

This measure will allow a small subset of cities and counties to to invest their capital or reserve dollars that are long term funds.

Madam Chair. Senator, it would not be pension money. Those pension dollars are at the state PERA and other places. This money would be the city's direct reserve funds, limited to 15% of that.

Members, any other questions or comments? Sorry, Senator Draskowski.

Senator Zhang?

Senator, there's very few of the HRAs particularly would be. One would be Dakota county has a separate HRA with a separate board. They would be eligible. St. Paul HRA is non separate. It's separate, but it's all wrapped into the city. So the HRA measure of this thing is very limited, Senator Zaskowski.

Madam Chair.

Thank you.

So

Thank you, Madam Chair. Sorry to go back to this, but it prompted another question. How liquid are these funds,

Madam Chair.

Senator Barr thank you, Madam Chair. So what I'm. I guess what I'm getting at is the economy Cycles. It goes up, it goes down. We have hard times, we have good times. And this is the reserve fund. And if you run into a down economy cycle for, say, a couple of budget site budget years, I wanted to see how liquid this was. If they needed to actually draw them funds, or would they take a serious haircut if they had to have the money right now? That's kind of where I'm getting at

Madam Chair.

I think we're all good. Anyone else, any other comments or questions?

Seeing no further discussion, Senator Zhang moves SF4367 to be recommended to pass and place on general orders. All in favor say aye.

Motion prevails. SF4367 recommended to pass and place on general orders.

Next up is Senate file 4555.

Thank you, Senator Zhang. Standby.

Senator Zhang, would you like to move the A5?

Members, all those in favor say aye. Opposed, say nay. A5 passes.

Thank you, Senator Zhang. Counsel. I'm sorry. Yes, whichever would like to proceed first. Please introduce yourself for the record and proceed.

All right, we can move on to the next section.

Fraud.

Any questions or comments?

Thank you. Proceed.

All right, Senator Barr, if you have something, or maybe not hang on. We're going to do markup and vote out this tomorrow. So right now it's going to be laid over. Do you still have a comment, Senator Barr, or do you want to wait till tomorrow? All right, well, we'll look forward to that. Anybody else? Okay with that? SF455, as amended, is laid over.

Oh, I'm.

just invite my witnesses to join.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for hearing. Senate file 2320. The bill authorizes local governments to prohibit or restrict a person from possessing a dangerous weapon, ammunition or explosion explosives within a building or on land owned or leased by the local government units such as a rec center, a library, a city hall or city parks. It creates a requirement that the local unit of government post signs giving notice of the ban and establishes a misdemeanor penalty for a violation. Unlike private non governmental establishments which can regulate the carrying of firearms in their spaces, there's no authority for a local government unit to ban firearms from being carried into local government owned or leased buildings and land which may include libraries, recreation and community centers. Other governmental facilities, including most notably schools and courts, have provisions in state law that permit them to ban dangerous weapons while knowingly on school property. Letting local governments have the local control and ability to ban firearms and government owned and leased buildings like our libraries and our recreation centers will be a critical step in helping to prevent any gun violence in our communities. This means that any city, if they decide that they want to ban guns and weapons on the buildings they own and lease, that they have the local control to make that decision based on their community members want. And Mr. Chairman, I have with me the President of the St. Paul City Council, Rebecca Nakor. And then we also have Katie. Katie, you want to come up too

Good morning Chair Zhang and members. Thank you so much for having me today. My name is Rebecca Naker. I'm president of the St. Paul City Council and I'm honored to be here today speaking on behalf of the City of St. Paul in support of this legislation. I have talking points here in front of me, but I decided that instead of using those, I'm just going to tell you about my day today. First order of business, I have an 11 and a 12 year old, so I got them to school. At the school there's a sign that says you can't bring guns inside. Next order of business was an 8am coffee meeting at Wildfire Coffee on West 7th Street. As I approached the building, there was a sign on the coffee shop telling me I couldn't bring guns inside. My next stop was work. I work at city Hall, Ramsey County Courthouse. As I walk in, not only is there security, can't bring guns into my place of work. And then finally I came here to meet with you. And as I came into this building, there's security. And in order to bring a gun into here, I would have to show my conceal and carry permit. I unfortunately am not going to be going to any rec centers, any parks or any libraries today. But if I were, those would be the only places in my entire day where I would be able to bring a firearm into those spaces. No signage, no security, no questions asked. That's not because the city of St. Paul wants it to be that way. That's because we are barred in state statute right now from doing what any coffee shop on the corner can do. And it is not theoretical. Just last year we had three separate incidents in which someone brought a firearm to a public beach, to a public park, and to rec centers. So I'm sure you'll hear some testimony today about the second amendment, the Constitution. And what I'm here today to tell you is this is not about the Constitution. This is about consistency and it's about common sense. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and Committee members, my name is Katie Topenka. I'm the director of intergovernmental relations for the city of Minneapolis. I'm here on behalf of the city. Unfortunately, Mayor Fry was not able to attend today, but I am pleased to be here to give testimony on behalf of the city of Minneapolis in support of this bill. As council president Naker already said, local governments do not have the authority to ban weapons in city owned or leased buildings. And for Minneapolis, this does include City hall because unlike St. Paul, we don't have a courthouse in Minneapolis City hall, so we aren't able to ban weapons in that building. And it's a building where we of course invite members of the public to come in and participate in the democratic process. Our elected officials, like many of you, have been receiving an increase in threats over the last year. And so quite frankly have our staff and the city would like to be able to put in place safety measures to ban weapons in those buildings so that we can ensure the safety of staff, the public and elected officials. In addition, as council president Naker mentioned, the city has parks and recreational facilities where we also cannot ban guns. I bring my kids, 11 and 8 year old to Our to a recreational center in Minneapolis every morning before school for their before school care. And so that is not a place where the city can choose to ban weapons. And so we appreciate Senator Pappas for bringing this bill forward. We think local governments should have the authority to make a decision about what is right for them in the buildings that they, they manage and oversee. So I'm happy to be here to testify in support of this bill today.

Thank you Mr. Chair, members of the committee. I'm sorry I can't be there in person today. I unfortunately had some scheduling conflicts that kept me out of town today. But thank you for allowing me to testify remotely. I just wanted to briefly say Mariah Day with the National Shooting Sports Foundation. NSSF is the trade association for the firearms, ammunition, hunting and recreational shooting sports industry and appreciate again the opportunity to speak today. SF 2320 proposes to eliminate Minnesota's long standing firearm preemption framework and that ensures that firearm regulations are consistent statewide. Doing so would result in a patchwork of conflicting local ordinances, create legal confusion, cause economic harm and introduce additional compliance challenges for your constituents. That's not just conjecture. As you're no doubt aware, some local governments have already made it clear that they intend to severely limit the ability of individuals living in or visiting their cities to exercise their right to keep and bear many of the most popular firearms in America. Those are firearms that are protected under the second amendment, of course. And Minnesota's firearm and outdoor industry is aware of lots of these types of situations because we are made up of a lot of small and mid sized businesses, local retailers, sporting goods stores, family owned companies. The firearm industry is also heavily regulated under federal and state law. And while a patchwork of local regulations would affect our entire industry, it would disproportionately impact small businesses. Uncertainty also discourages investment. Manufacturers and distributors evaluating where to expand facilities or to establish operations put a premium on stable regulatory systems. Eliminating preemption would signal additional unpredictability and risk. And unfortunately that would also push future investments and jobs away from Minnesota towards surrounding states. I won't belabor the other points I made in my testimony which you have before you, I believe today. But do you want to just briefly summarize by saying that Senate File 2320 would essentially replace the clarity of preemption with confusion. It would replace consistency with fragmentation, instability with uncertainty. So I appreciate your time today and would be happy to stand for any questions. Thank you, Mr.

Thank you, Mr.

My name is Anna Leamy, Director of Government relations and advocacy for the Minnesota Gun Owners caucus. Senate File 2320 would authorize local units of government, including cities, counties and townships, to prohibit lawful firearm possession in government owned buildings and on government controlled land. While this is framed as a limited grant of authority, this proposal would significantly undermine Minnesota's long standing framework of uniform firearm laws and create serious challenges for law abiding citizens. Minnesota's current statewide permit to carry system provides clear, consistent rules for lawful carry across all jurisdictions. This uniformity ensures that permit holders can confidently exercise their rights without needing to navigate a maze of shifting local restrictions. Permit holders already must meet statutory eligibility requirements, complete training, and are already subject to disqualifying criteria under both state and federal law. Senate file 2320 breaks from that model by allowing each local government to establish its own firearm prohibitions for public property. As a result, lawful carry could be permitted in one city building but criminalized in the next, often without clear notice to the public. Senate File 2320 does not target criminal misuse. It targets lawful conduct. It imposes new restrictions on those already following the law while doing nothing to deter those who ignore it. By delegating this authority to local governments. Senate File 2320 also invites a patchwork of inconsistent regulations across Minnesota. This fragmented regulatory scheme would place an unreasonable burden on responsibility responsible gun owners attempting to comply with the law. Clear, uniform laws promote compliance and effective enforcement. A patchwork of local prohibitions does the opposite. For these reasons, I urge you to vote no on Senate file 2320.

Mr. Gosh, good afternoon.

Thank you, sir.

Chair, members of the committee, my name is Brian Gosh. I'm a lawyer, registered lobbyist with the National Rifle association here today to oppose Senate file 2320. The House had a bill similar to this and it was defeated over there. This session, my opposition testimony is going to pertain to some of the remarks you heard from the proponents, and I'm going to add on to some of the things you heard from the opponents. So one of the things the proponents said was Private business can stop you from carrying a firearm if they post a sign. Why shouldn't local government? Well, I don't have to go to the barista. I don't have to go to that coffee shop if I don't want to, if they're posting no firearms allowed. But government services and local government buildings are my one stop shop. It's the only place I can go to get those services that that local government provides. If I want to get that service or that item, I have to be able to go into that building to do so. Also, you're disarming the law abiding citizen from the parking lot to the entrance of that building as well. And some of these places can be dangerous with unsavory characters around them. Currently, under Minnesota law, you are the sole determiners of firearm regulation in Minnesota. And one of the reasons for that is so that you have consistency across the state so that no matter where you travel you have the same rules applied. You're not looking at a chart to see, okay, Now I'm entering St. Paul. What are the rules? Now I'm going to Hibbing. What are the rules? You know what the rules are because they're the same across state of Minnesota. Various areas of the law in Minnesota are like that. They require that same uniformity across the state. For example in motor vehicles, wherever you travel in Minnesota, whatever county, township, city, you know you have to use your turn signal, you know you have to stay in the right lane, so on and so forth. The provisional law that pertains TO that is 169.02 in Minnesota statutes, where it reads, the provisions of this chapter shall be applicable and uniform throughout this state and in all political subdivisions and municipalities therein. And no local authority shall enact or enforce any rule or regulation in conflict with the provisions of this chapter unless expressly authorized herein. Other areas of law that would be similar would be criminal law, taxation and revenue, human rights and civil rights, environmental protections and elections law uniform across the state. Finally, I'll end with how this bill moves a different direction from one of your neighbors to the west. South Dakota not only allows you to carry in local government buildings, but not this session, but the session before they passed a bill that said you have to allow local government employees to carry in those buildings as well. So with that I'll stand by for questions. Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the committee.

Thank you, Mr.

My question is maybe for counsel, but also Perhaps for Senator Pappas and maybe for Chair Necker, what this is like, what is the framework around where these signs can stand? So when I volunteer at my grandkids school, there is a sign, I heard her say that at St. Paul City hall there is a ban on guns. Can schools do this? Already can Only the federal like if I could have just a little overview of. Yes. Public schools, yes. Federal government, yes. State buildings. I would like that would help me a lot in the context of, of this discussion.

and our own council can help with this. So as we mentioned, schools can post signs, a courthouse can post a sign, but city hall cannot. In St. Paul they have a combined courthouse, city hall, so they're able to ban guns. The sign description is on the back of the, of the, the bill. But there are. What's part of the patchwork problem is that as we said, libraries, recreational centers, pools, parking lots that are adjacent to those facilities are not able to ban weapons. So that's kind of the inconsistency here.

Yes. Thank you Chair Zhang. And thank you so much for the question, Senator. And yes, I would agree. And I think the, the fact is that we already have a patchwork as a result of that to one of the previous points that was made. And so I think that that's, that's a really relevant point as well that it's already inconsistent. There was also a question about signage and I think one of the things that the city is seeking in this is actually the ability to put up signage. So I think there was a previous comment about not being clear about the rules. We want to be very clear about the rules. We are not allowed to do that right now.

Thank you, Chair. Yeah, I want to emphasize that when I walk into my children's school, my grandkids school and I see that sign that gives me comfort. I mean I realize a sign is not a shield, but I also know that it's very clear for me to understand where guns are and where they are not permitted. When I go into Great Clips and I see the sign when I go into Caribou, when I go into Lunds wherever, but I have been wondering like, why are there only signs some places? And I'm a gun owner. We have lots of guns in our house. They just happen to be locked up separate from the ammunition that is used in them. I like that very much. And I would push back on the testimony that said this is unclear at all on line 2.6 and 2.7. It clearly says what the sign must say. I think for the last. Somebody else can fill me in. But the last number of years we've seen these signs in our communities. We are well used to them and so I think the clarity is there. So thank you for answering my question and I will support this bill wholeheartedly.

Senator Barr, you were. Senator Matthews, I think you were next on the list. No. Senator Draskowski, then

Mr. Bosch or Ms. Leamy.

Chair, I am Senator Draskowski.

Yeah. Mr. Chairman on line 1.22. It does say you're guilty of a

Well, that's what I see too, Mr. Chair. So let's think about this, members. We've got the local unit of government passing an Ordinance that creates a state misdemeanor. I don't know if I've seen that before in statute. Maybe council could tell us, is that how this bill works?

Senator Jaskowski. Because this bill has a criminal law elements I believe maybe our criminal council would be better equipped to answer that question. I do know possession of a firearm without a permit is also a crime. I think a gross misdemeanor in some cases. So there are other criminal laws. But whether there's an analog that's closer to this I may need to do some more looking into that or check with our criminal law council for judiciary on that one.

Senator Draskowski.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Yeah.

Senator Crane.

Yes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And Senator Corinne?

And he had a legal gun permit to have the gun. What I'm saying is that, though, however, if guns were banned at his place of employment, he would not have had that gun.

Chair.

Senator Pappas. There's nothing there. I'm pretty sure the city of St. Paul likely has a no weapons allowed for employees. They're still allowed. An employer's allowed to be able to determine the work conditions for their employees. And so I don't believe that scenario applies to this particular issue. But the signs are right. They went up all over the place, and now they come down. Because actually, at the end of the day, signs don't stop anything. And it's really a list of political ideologies that businesses choose to wear on their sleeve. If those businesses choose to do that, they're picking their customers. Right. Those that we all read those signs differently. You may read them so you don't go in them or so you want to go in them and have some false sense of security. That a sign matters, they don't matter and it punishes the individuals. The honest law abiding citizens that have a right to carry no rec center sign with or without the sign is going to stop a weapon from going in there because the criminals don't care. It's a false sense of security. I think it's an invasion of our privacy and I agree with the one testifier we have to interact with government. They're forced to. We're not required to interact with any other private business. We have many options practically for everything we do. And the law abiding people are not the problem. And none of this has any impact on the most violent. You can create a misdemeanor for carrying in. We're not even punishing or charging in many cases violent felons with guns over multiple incidences. If they happen to get charged and they happen to be convicted there's no rightful or useful consequence being applied. All this is feel good, it's pandering and it's creating a false sense of security that any sign matters in that environment. If we take care of we want to make things safe, let's have crimes punish those that are carrying it. I've said it forever and you know Bob Fletcher or Ramsey county sheriff tell you that 90 people that have committed 98% of the violent shootings in St. Paul let's put them in jail. Let's not make a free opportunity or like we have for the schools. Let's pretend they're gun free zones and make our children victims or the most likely victims. And we've done that for 30 years. The signs don't matter. It's never going to affect them. But having, having a. Not having or maybe having the right sign outside the schools. The schools. The school sign should say beware someone may be armed and they're ready to take care of business there. Right? That somebody's going to. Because everyone looks for some any place with no resistance. Everybody likes an unarmed victim and I don't think this does anything to it. So Mr.

can I talk again or not?

This one is going to. General orders.

Roll call being requested. A roll call will be given. Senator Johnson, Senator Pappas.

Mr. Chairman, Council President Naker would like to make a statement.

Well said, Senator Switzinski.

Maybe a council.

And it's not for this body perhaps. So I didn't mean to put but I'm just curious.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'm sorry, I've heard the phrase conceal and carry a couple times and I just don't know the difference between conceal and carry and open and carry. And if there is a difference between those two laws and those two licenses, somebody has to get and so if you could relay that to the proper counsel person and have them get back to me. I'm just curious because what that law actually says. So again, Senator Pappas. Thank you.

Mr. Chair, I understand if you want to open carry in Minnesota, you need a concealed carry permit for that as well. And so both of them fall under concealed carry law.

thank you Chair. And I appreciate this Bill. You know, when you bring up the rec center example, I think about all the people that are in there and sometimes people are using locker rooms and maybe they're changing and I worry about maybe like access that someone who maybe like brought their firearm in and then they left it in a locker or they left it by their bag and then someone else gets It. So that would be a concern for me. And, you know, prohibiting those in those spaces would remove that access. I also appreciate the local control. I mean, we talk all the time about how cities know what's best for their cities and we should allow local controls. So I think this is actually being consistent with local control. So thank you for bringing this up, Senator lang.

Chair.

Chair. Members, any other questions or comments to the bill? Thank you Senator Pappas for bringing this bill. I will be a yes vote on this and I'm not here to convince anybody on this board. I think our like what they've said in our minds are made up. I think this is just our local government's trying to make it safer. You know, we certainly got plenty of emails. Those emails are very important whether you're for or against. I understand the arguments that, you know, it's in the, it's in the bill rights, it's in our constitution. It's in our constitution. But I think they didn't have the machine guns back when they drafted the Constitution. And we're just in a different time with many different situations that have unfortunately come up and come up really close to this body and I thank you. Senator Pappas with you. I'll give you the final word.

Thank you. And with that Staff will take the roll Chair Zhang. Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

No.

Yes.

No.

Yes.

Yes.

Stewart.

Senator Corian.

Senator Matthews. Mr. Chair, there are seven eyes and five no's.

I was wondering.

Yeah.

Yes.

Yes.

Yes.

Senator Barr?

Senator Swatzinski.

Senator Driscowski.

Senator Fateh.

Senator Hemingson?

Yes.

Heck yeah.

No.

No, Mr.

All right, again, members, there being seven ayes and five nos, Senate file 2320 is recommended pass and to be placed on general orders. Thank you. With that, next up, we have Senate file. Oh, I'm sorry. Members, I've been informed that the elections will be begin beginning pretty soon. Senate file 4640 will be moved to tomorrow's agenda. And with that, we are adjourn.