Skip to main content Skip to office menu Skip to footer
Capital IconMinnesota Legislature

Legislative News and Views - Rep. Shane Hudella (R)

Back to profile

Rep. Hudella Legislative Update

Friday, April 28, 2023

Hello from St. Paul,


I wanted to let you know about a town hall meeting I will soon be holding with Sen. Seeberger. The event will be held on Sunday, May 7 at 2:00 p.m. at the HERO Center, 10125 85th St S, in Cottage Grove.


The meeting will give you an opportunity to hear an update on session and to have your legislative questions answered. I hope to see you there!



How would you feel about our state government setting up a division of “thought police” that will respond to claims that what you’ve said or written might be biased, and keeping those files on record?


As part of a provision in the House Democrat public safety bill, Minnesota would allow the Department of Human Rights to collect data on individual speech that is not criminal, but deemed by someone to be biased and concerning. 


Specifically, it forms policies to solicit, receive and compile reports from community organizations, school districts and individuals regarding incidents a community member believes are motivated by bias. 


That data will be stored and analyzed, and could actually be sought after by the state – a government bias registry of sorts.


So what could be considered biased speech that could put you on the naughty list? During the House floor debate the question was asked if a Minnesotan writes an article claiming or arguing that COVID-19 is a Chinese bio-weapon that leaked from a lab in Wuhan, if that is something that should be put in the bias registry. The answer was it can be considered a hate or bias incident. The bill author was then asked if someone wearing an “I love J.K. Rowling” shirt could face the same fate, and she stated that circumstance would be something for lawyers to decide.


That’s just what we need. Lawyers determining what they think you meant after a government agency determined your non-criminal related speech might have hurt someone’s feelings.


This is a scary attack on your First Amendment rights, especially when you consider you were exercising your freedom of expression in a way that was neither violent nor criminal. The other day, I told a local business owner about this policy and his comment was: “Isn’t that what China and Russia do?”


He is absolutely right.  


I encourage you to read this article from the New York Post on this topic as I have not seen anything reported on it locally.


This language, along with the entire House Democrat public safety proposal, was approved with no support from Republicans and bipartisan opposition and sent to the Minnesota Senate for further debate.



The omnibus public safety bill was disappointing in numerous other ways as well, as it is literally a “get out of jail free” card for criminals. It makes thousands of incarcerated felons eligible for early release and reduces sentences for violent offenders. The bill also senselessly provides over $100 million dollars to non-profits with little accountability rather than sending that money directly to law enforcement to help fight crime.  


But it also contains Democrat gun control favorites that will do nothing to stop violent crime. 


It includes universal background checks. Keep in mind, when we’re talking about violent crime, we’re talking about criminals. Criminals looking to acquire firearms will not follow the complex new process laid out in the proposal and this will do nothing to stop the flow of firearms in the illicit, criminal gun market. 


There is also an extreme risk protection order that violates due process and does not address the alleged safety risk—the individual. If someone is a legitimate threat, simply seizing firearms will not prevent an individual from doing harm to themselves or others through other means. The seizure of property without a warrant and due process, especially property that is explicitly protected by the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, violates civil rights. 


As you know, I am pro-2nd Amendment and look forward to these new laws being challenged in court, where they have often failed around the country when challenged. It’s disappointing that the Democrat majority is not putting forth a bill that addresses crime by making a larger investment in our law enforcement professionals and provides more focus on keeping violent offenders in jail. Instead, the majority is scaling back rights for law abiding citizens, pushing for shorter sentences for violent criminals, and wasting taxpayer dollars by investing in pipe-dream answers like “community violence interrupters.”


Have a good weekend,



Recent News for Rep. Shane Hudella