They say he was charged, then say “charges were forwarded” (which isn’t a thing. A case gets referral for prosecution. Charges only come once a prosecutor files them. After 3 months, highly unlikely there’s going to be any more probable cause than existed on the day of incident.

There's no record of any charges filed.

Charged, you say... What's the case number?

I have 81188

Dang.

Minnesota’s intent element doesn’t vanish because Duke files the law under “Categorical Bans.” Minneapolis’s ordinance doesn’t become enforceable because someone counted its residents. Overrelying on Duke’s incomplete database is how cherry-picked citations get promoted into imaginary legal traditions. Read the statute. Read the cases. Check applicability. Check enforceability. “Duke had it in a spreadsheet” is not a constitutional test.

To be clear, Minneapolis really voted for restrictions. That's political theater. It does not show its residents live under a valid local AR-15 ban. State preemption does not disappear because the ordinance has a footnote in a Supreme Court brief.

On p. 52, the brief invokes "Over 120 million people" in places that "have voted to be free from AR-15 platform weapons." Footnote 7 includes Minneapolis. You can count a council vote. You can't count it as an enforceable ban.

Minneapolis knows this. The sponsor's May 2026 explanation says its new gun provisions take effect only if state preemption changes and the city gets authority to act. A legislative wish list is not an operative ban.

471.633 says: "Local regulation inconsistent with this section is void." Ask St. Paul, they're keenly aware of this in court. Mpls may be next. The exceptions permit discharge rules &regulations identical to state law. Neither authorizes Minneapolis to invent its own rifle ban.

Next: Minneapolis. The brief cites its assault-weapons ordinance, §393.85, on p. 9. Minnesota expressly preempts inconsistent local firearms regulation. The city's separate ban is unenforceable under that rule. Municode is not a validity check.

Duke also warns that its database omits case law and doesn't comprehensively track repeal, revision or enforcement. Cherry-picking entries is not a substitute for legal analysis. Even the database's instructions tell you to do the homework.

Duke's repository files this same law under "Categorical Bans." Its own transcription still includes the intent requirement. A database tag is not a judicial holding. Putting a law in the right folder doesn't make it the right analogue.

Minnesota's Supreme Court later reversed a conviction because the jury instruction shifted the burden of disproving intent to the defendant. The state still had to prove intent. State v. Simon (1925). law.justia.com/cases/minneso…

§334 required attempted use against another, or carrying, concealing or possessing with intent to use against another. Mere possession wasn't enough under that section.

§333 banned making and distributing slingshots, sandclubs and metal knuckles. Its firearm clause covered sales/gifts to under-18s, in cities, without written magistrate consent. Those are different rules. They didn't read the whole sentence.

On p. 24, the brief cites Minnesota's 1888 code for possession "with intent to use." By p. 26, slungshots are part of its story about historical "possession bans." That qualification is doing less work as the argument gets bigger.

Minnesota Angle: Cook County's SCOTUS gun-ban brief has a MN problem. Two, actually. An intent-based offense becomes support for blanket bans. A preempted city ordinance helps pad the argument for widespread regulation. Let's check the receipts. supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/2…

116,911

11m