School firearm storage bill fails in education committee

It was appropriate that Rep. Julie Greene (DFL-Edina) was flanked by students in a State Capitol hearing room.

After all, she sponsors HF3401 to mandate the storage of firearms on school property. Greene said the bill was devised with help from the students who advised her on gun violence prevention measures.

“Minnesota laws leave too much room for interpretation when it comes to firearms in cars,” said Logan Bracken, a senior at Edina High School.

The bill stipulates that gun owners would have to store firearms in a “locked container, safe, or other secure device made to contain a firearm,” or within the locked trunk of a motor vehicle or out of sight if no trunk is available when on school property.

And it would broaden school property firearm storage requirements to two new groups: permit-to-carry holders, and off-duty firearm instructors, ceremonial color guards and others exempt from the general prohibition on possessing firearms on school property.

The House Education Policy Committee failed to approve the bill on a 7-7 party-line vote.

Firearms being stolen out of cars is a particular focus of the bill for Hennepin County Sheriff Dawanna Witt.

“In 2025 alone, my agency seized 697 illegally possessed firearms, and a great number of them were stolen. I believe that we can significantly reduce this problem, and I am confident, if passed, this bill we are discussing today can save lives,” Witt said.

In a letter to the committee, the Association of Metropolitan School Districts, Minnesota Association of School Administrators, Minnesota Elementary School Principals’ Association and Minnesota Association of Secondary School Principals expressed support.

“Legislation that clearly restricts when and how firearms may be present on school property, and that reinforces secure storage requirements, is a reasonable and targeted step to reduce preventable risk,” it said.

[MORE: Read written testimony]

Several Republicans worried how private schools specifically would be affected by the bill, and others worried about language vagueness regarding where these rules would apply.

“We heard some concerns about the non-public schools and how some of the things they’re doing currently to protect themselves may not be allowed with this bill,” Rep. Peggy Bennett (R-Albert Lea) said.

Added Rep. Patricia Mueller (R-Austin): “I believe there’s still enough ambiguity in some of the education language that I’m not comfortable to send it to public safety.”