Opinion: Don’t rush into mandatory screenings, metal detectors or gun bans at the Minnesota Capitol

Opinion editor’s note: Strib Voices publishes a mix of guest commentaries online and in print each day. To contribute, click here.

•••

The tragic deaths of Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, and the violent attack on Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette, and the thwarted plans for additional violence have understandably intensified public and legislative discussions surrounding security at the Minnesota Capitol.

Despite these attacks occurring in private residences, the Capitol has become a central focus of security debates. In response to these events, proposals have emerged advocating for measures such as prohibiting legally carried firearms and imposing rigorous security screenings at the Capitol. While the intent to enhance safety at “the people’s house” is understandable, it is essential to carefully balance security requirements with constitutional rights.

The Minnesota Capitol serves as a traditional public forum where citizens actively exercise their First Amendment rights, including peaceable assembly, free expression and petitioning the government for redress of grievances. Public participation and open access to governance are fundamental to a healthy representative democracy. Consequently, security measures such as mandatory screenings, metal detectors or firearm prohibitions must undergo careful scrutiny to ensure they do not unnecessarily restrict these essential freedoms.

The Advisory Committee on Capitol Area Security has extensively researched and implemented targeted enhancements, such as limiting public entrances, increasing surveillance capabilities and controlling access to sensitive areas within the Capitol complex. These measures have effectively improved security without significantly impairing citizens’ ability to participate actively in governance.

However, one major recommendation — implementing metal detectors — remains unfulfilled due to substantial financial and logistical challenges. Establishing widespread metal detector screenings would introduce significant complications, including increased wait times, invasive searches, staffing difficulties and potential deterrents to civic participation.

Additionally, proposals for a comprehensive firearm ban at the Capitol present considerable constitutional and practical issues. Nearly half a million Minnesotans hold valid permits allowing lawful firearm carry. Permit holders have completed thorough training, passed proficiency tests and undergone rigorous background checks by local sheriffs. Empirical data consistently demonstrate that Minnesota permit holders commit crimes at significantly lower rates compared to the general population. According to the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension’s 2024 data, permit holders were approximately 4.7 times less likely to commit firearm-related offenses and seven times less likely to commit felonies than the broader adult population.

Any legislative proposal restricting lawful firearm carry at the Capitol would require statutory amendments and face rigorous constitutional scrutiny. Policies broadly prohibiting lawfully armed citizens, including legislators exercising their right to self-defense, are unlikely to pass even minimal judicial scrutiny. To withstand challenge, such policies must be shown to enhance public safety and align with the text, history and tradition of firearms regulations — a challenging criterion to meet.

Capitol hearings frequently extend late into the night, presenting genuine security concerns in areas surrounding the Capitol. Risks persist in nearby parking facilities, public transit stations and streets, especially during nighttime hours. Despite commendable efforts by the Minnesota State Patrol and Capitol Security personnel, complete safety at all times cannot be guaranteed. Prohibiting lawful firearm possession within the Capitol complex will expose visitors to greater risk outside the building perimeter, compromising individual safety without achieving measurable security improvements.

Ultimately, respect for constitutional rights must fundamentally guide any policy decisions affecting Capitol access. The Capitol should remain genuinely open and accessible, allowing citizens to freely exercise both First and Second Amendment rights without onerous restrictions. Effective security measures and robust constitutional protections are not mutually exclusive but must coexist to maintain public confidence.

The guiding principle should consistently prioritize preserving the Capitol as an open, accessible public forum that encourages active democratic participation. Security measures should enhance — not undermine — the essential freedoms that sustain our democracy. No constitutional right should vanish at the Capitol steps.

Rob Doar works in public defense and serves as the senior vice president of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, writing on topics related to civil liberties, law and public policy.