Minnesota Standardized Firearm Surrender. The Same Law Broadens What Can Be Taken.

What happens to a person's firearms after a court enters a qualifying domestic-violence order or conviction?

HF4075 replaces Minnesota's scattered procedures with one system.

The underlying firearm prohibitions already existed. Chapter 75 standardizes how a restricted person transfers firearms to a licensed dealer, law enforcement, or an eligible third party. The person must provide proof of transfer or declare nonpossession, and the court holds a compliance hearing within ten business days unless proof allows the hearing to be waived.

Law enforcement must accept the firearms and exercise due care. When the prohibition ends, the law guarantees their return.

The surrender itself generally cannot be used to prosecute the person. The statute creates an in-camera process and use-immunity protection, addressing the problem of forcing someone to admit possession while complying with the court.

Other provisions broaden older language from "pistol" to "firearms." In qualifying cases, forfeiture expands to all other firearms possessed by the person. Arrest and contempt can enforce noncompliance.

The U.S. Supreme Court upheld firearm restrictions for people subject to qualifying domestic-violence orders in *United States v. Rahimi*. The live policy question is the scope and administration of Minnesota's procedure, including whether future legislatures attach it to broader categories.

Chapter 75 makes firearm surrender more uniform and adds real due-process protections. It also expands covered weapons and forfeiture in specified cases.

This is our read of the law. We encourage you to read it yourself and reach your own conclusions.