Gov. Tim Walz says Legislature should reconsider guns at Capitol complex in wake of lawmaker shootings

Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz said Thursday the Legislature should reconsider allowing people to carry firearms inside the State Capitol in wake of the shootings of two lawmakers and their spouses inside their homes over the weekend.
State law allows handguns at the Capitol so long as someone has a permit to carry. But any state court can limit firearms within its own buildings, and that includes the Minnesota Judicial Center, where the Minnesota Supreme Court has proceedings on the Capitol complex.
"I think there's going to be a conversation, and this will be a broader one, in the legislature and with us of what we can do to provide that kind of security," Walz told reporters Thursday. "I think the conversation will come up at the Capitol. I made no bones about it that I think it's inappropriate that we carry firearms in the Capitol, and I think we have to reassess that."
The shooting of DFL Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette, and the killing of DFL Speaker Emerita Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, which officials described as a politically motivated assassination, has upended lawmakers' sense of safety. Authorities said the accused killer had a hit list that included the names of 45 state and federal elected officials who are Democrats.
Walz's comments came after there was a "threat of violence" to the Capitol building on Wednesday, according to a statement Thursday from the House Republican Caucus spokeswoman.
GOP Rep. Jim Nash notified law enforcement and the House Sergeant at Arms of a text message a constituent received that was "threatening in nature," according to the news release. The person who allegedly sent it was arrested and is in Carver County Jail.
"The threat was not aimed at any particular lawmaker but the message did include a threat of violence at the Capitol," the statement said.
Prohibiting guns at the State Capitol would require the Legislature's approval, which is unlikely in the tied House and DFL-led Senate. Rob Doar, senior vice president of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, in a social media post said that doing so won't prevent bad actors from committing violence.
"It only disarms the very people with the strongest incentive to protect life: themselves and their colleagues," he wrote. "Security theater isn't security. Constitutional rights don't vanish at the Capitol steps."
The tragedy has renewed a debate about security at the capitol complex more broadly. Right now there is no single point of entry or security screening to enter the capitol building, and some believe that should change.
Others are adamant the building should remain as accessible to the public as possible.The Advisory Committee on Capitol Area Security in its recent report said there has been $19 million allocated for security upgrades at the complex over the last five years. Part of their mission statement is that the "Capitol, Minnesota Senate, and State Office Buildings must remain open in both reality and perception."

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

CNN

28 minutes ago

• CNN

Judge blocks Trump administration from tying transportation funds to states' cooperation with immigration efforts

A federal judge in Rhode Island blocked the Trump administration from using states' cooperation with immigration efforts as a condition for receiving transportation funds. US District Judge John McConnell granted a preliminary injunction to 20 mostly Democratic-led states that filed a lawsuit last month to prevent the Department of Transportation from cutting off billions of dollars in funding if the states refused to comply with federal immigration enforcement. In his Thursday ruling, McConnell, who was nominated by former President Barack Obama, said, 'Congress did not authorize or grant authority to the Secretary of Transportation to impose immigration enforcement conditions on federal dollars specifically appropriated for transportation purposes.' The ruling is the latest legal setback for President Donald Trump's administration. Many state attorneys general have sued over issues ranging from the president's bid to end birthright citizenship to his tariff policies. The president has used federal funding as leverage amid policy disagreements with different states and organizations. He threatened to withhold funds from California over a transgender athlete's participation in a sporting event and to cut off $3 billion in federal grant funding for Harvard University over its handling of anti-Israel protests. In his ruling, McConnell wrote that the immigration-enforcement condition on the funding 'is arbitrary and capricious in its scope and lacks specificity in how the States are to cooperate on immigration enforcement in exchange for Congressionally appropriated transportation dollars–grant money that the States rely on to keep their residents safely and efficiently on the road, in the sky, and on the rails.' CNN has reached out to the Department of Transportation for comment. Earlier this week, Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy wrote in a social media post that the department 'will NOT fund rogue state actors who refuse to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement.' The lawsuit was brought by California, Illinois, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Maryland, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin. California's Attorney General Rob Bonta praised the court's decision and criticized Trump for using funds 'as a bargaining chip.' 'It's immoral – and more importantly, illegal. I'm glad to see the District Court agrees, blocking the President's latest attempt to circumvent the Constitution and coerce state and local governments into doing his bidding while we continue to make our case in court,' Bonta said in a statement on Thursday.

New York Times

41 minutes ago

• New York Times

Assisted Dying Moves Closer to Becoming Law in England and Wales After Key Vote

British lawmakers on Friday approved plans to introduce assisted dying for terminally ill patients in England and Wales, advancing what would be one of the biggest social changes seen in Britain in decades. After a debate that was at times emotive and fraught but remained respectful in tone, legislators supported the proposal by a vote of 314 to 291. The vote on Friday was the second time lawmakers have approved the idea of assisted dying, after an initial vote in November of last year that was followed by months of scrutiny and debate in parliamentary committees. The issue has provoked deep division in and beyond the British Parliament. The bill now goes to the unelected second chamber of the Parliament, the House of Lords. While the Lords can amend legislation, the fact that the bill has the support of elected lawmakers means that it is very likely to become law. That would mean Britain would join a number of jurisdictions where assisted dying is permitted, including a small number of European countries, Canada and New Zealand, as well as 10 U.S. states and the District of Columbia. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.

Bloomberg

an hour ago

• Bloomberg

Stocks Rise on Waller's Remarks and Mideast Hopes: Markets Wrap

A post-holiday Wall Street session saw stocks rising and short-dated Treasuries outperforming after Federal Reserve Governor Christopher Waller said rates could drop as soon as July, while concerns about a direct US involvement in the Middle East conflict eased as Donald Trump held off on a decision on whether to strike Iran. The S&P 500 bounced after two sessions of losses. Investors also braced for a $6.5 trillion US options expiring on Friday, in a move that could free equities to swing more wildly than the subdued changes seen in recent weeks. Two-year yields almost wiped out their advance, trading around 3.94%. Oil fell after a news report that Tehran is ready to discuss limitations on its uranium enrichment.