The U.S. Justice Department filed a federal lawsuit on September 24 challenging the time Minnesota makes many residents wait before buying a handgun or a rifle covered by the state's regulated-rifle definition. The 13-page complaint, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota as case 0:26-cv-04123, names the State of Minnesota, Minneapolis and St. Paul as defendants. It asks for declaratory and permanent injunctive relief, not money damages.
The case is about acquisition for possession in the home, not permits to carry in public. DOJ alleges that Minnesota's permit-to-purchase and transferee-report system violates the Second Amendment when applied to law-abiding residents seeking firearms for home defense. That is the federal government's legal position at the complaint stage. The defendants have not yet answered in the record cited by DOJ, and the court has not ruled that any part of Minnesota's system is unconstitutional.
Two routes, each with a possible 30-day wait
The complaint describes two purchase routes for residents who do not have a Minnesota carry permit. Under the transferee-report route, it says state law generally bars transfer of a handgun or regulated rifle until 30 days after the report reaches the buyer's local police chief or sheriff. DOJ uses “regulated rifle” as shorthand for the category Minnesota law calls a “semiautomatic military-style assault weapon,” which the filing says includes AR-15-style rifles.
Invalid Date
More Articles
A resident can instead apply for a permit to purchase through the police chief where the applicant lives, or through the sheriff where there is no local chief. According to the complaint, Minnesota law gives the Minneapolis and St. Paul police chiefs up to 30 days to grant or deny those applications. DOJ characterizes that route as replacing one possible 30-day delay with another. The filing also says a purchase permit remains valid for one year, so a person relying on it must return to the application process after expiration.
DOJ alleges that processing in Minneapolis and St. Paul commonly runs beyond the statutory 30-day limit and that some applicants have waited nearly 60 days. The complaint says state law supplies neither a penalty for an agency that misses the deadline nor a remedy for the delayed applicant. Those delay claims are allegations that will have to be tested in litigation. The filing does not identify individual applicants, give a dataset of processing times, or say how many applications exceeded 30 days.
DOJ uses a police-misconduct statute
The federal government brought the case under 34 U.S.C. § 12601, a statute that authorizes the attorney general to seek equitable and declaratory relief against a pattern or practice of law-enforcement conduct that deprives people of federal rights. DOJ argues that city officers enforcing the purchase provisions are engaged in such a pattern or practice. Its requested declaration would state that Minnesota and the two cities are governmental authorities, that the relevant personnel are law-enforcement officers, and that their enforcement deprives residents of Second Amendment rights.
On the constitutional question, the complaint relies on the Supreme Court's text-and-history framework and argues that acquiring a firearm is a necessary predicate to keeping one. It cites appellate decisions involving purchase limits and waiting periods, then contends Minnesota cannot identify a sufficiently similar historical tradition for its system. Those citations frame DOJ's theory; they do not themselves dispose of this case. Minnesota and the cities can dispute the allegations, the use of Section 12601, the constitutional analysis, or all three.
No immediate change for buyers
The filing does not suspend a statute, issue a permit, or shorten an application deadline by itself. Minnesota buyers remain subject to the existing process unless the court enters an injunction, the parties settle, or the law changes through another route. The requested injunction would stop the defendants from enforcing the provisions DOJ labels unlawful, but the precise reach of any eventual order would depend on the court's findings and wording. The lawsuit also does not challenge Minnesota's public-carry licensing system.
DOJ says more than 93 percent of Minnesota residents lack a carry permit, comparing a state population of 5,830,405 with 375,551 permit holders reported for 2025. That comparison describes the potential scale of the system, not the number currently trying to buy a covered firearm or experiencing a delay. The next procedural milestones are service of the complaint, responses from Minnesota and the two cities, and any motion seeking early injunctive relief. Until those filings arrive, the defendants' legal defenses and the court's timetable remain unknown.
About the Author
Nick Sawinyh - Nick Sawinyh is a father, husband, hobby farmer, and gun enthusiast from Kentucky. He founded GunsNation and writes most of what appears on this blog.
