Introduction and summary
Minnesota has recently experienced a surge in violent crime fueled by guns.1 Although the state has relatively low rates of gun violence compared with the rest of the United States,2 its gun homicide and gun death rates have increased significantly, rising by 138 percent3 and 28 percent,4 respectively, between 2018 and 2021. Comparatively, the national gun homicide rate increased 52 percent5 and the national gun death rate increased 22 percent over that same period.6 Based on a four-year average from 2018 to 2021, the vast majority of Minnesota gun deaths—roughly 73 percent—were suicides,7 and Minnesota reported a gun suicide death rate up to three times higher than that of states with stronger gun laws.8 These increased rates have coincided with a spike in gun purchasing: From 2018 to 2021, Minnesota saw a 56 percent increase in federal background checks for gun sales.9 And preliminary data indicate that the state’s gun crisis is only growing: 2021 saw the highest number of Minnesotans killed by guns on record—a shocking 573 deaths.10 The youngest of these reported victims was a 3-year-old girl unintentionally shot and killed by a five-year-old in Cass County,11 and the oldest was a 97-year-old man in Steele County who, according to reports, used a firearm to take his own life.12
While gun violence can affect anyone, its burden and scope are not felt equally across communities in Minnesota. In particular, despite representing less than 2 percent of the Minnesota population,13 American Indian and Alaskan Native populations experience the highest gun death rate across all racial and ethnic groups in the state—22.6 per 100,000 people, nearly triple the rate for Minnesota’s white population.14 Equally concerning, an American Indian person living in Minnesota is more than 70 percent more likely to die by suicide than a white person living in the state.15 Disparities in violent victimization can also be seen among Minnesota’s Black communities, which experience a gun homicide rate 21 times greater than that of white communities.16 Black youth living in Minnesota are also five times more likely to die by firearm than their white counterparts.17 Other particularly affected communities include the state’s veteran population, who experience more than 100 gun suicide deaths per year—roughly 14 percent of Minnesota’s annual suicide deaths overall.18
With gun violence and mass shootings an everyday reality in the United States, students, communities, and physicians in Minnesota have called on policymakers to pass proven and popular gun safety laws.
The challenges posed by gun violence in Minnesota also differ between rural and metro areas. Gun suicide poses a particular challenge in Minnesota’s rural and nonmetro areas: In 2021, more than 80 percent of all gun suicide deaths occurred in the greater Minnesota region,19 nearly double the rate for the Twin Cities metro area.20 Meanwhile, 8 out of 10 gun homicide deaths from 2018 to 2021 occurred in the seven counties that make up the Twin Cities metro area.21
With gun violence and mass shootings an everyday reality in the United States, students,22 communities,23 and physicians24 in Minnesota have called on policymakers to pass proven and popular gun safety laws. Additionally, recent polling data from the Joyce Foundation and George Family Foundation indicate that most Minnesota voters want stronger gun laws: A staggering 92 percent of likely voters support universal background checks, 86 percent support extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs), and 82 percent support increasing state funding for community-based organizations that provide victim services and develop community violence intervention programs.25 Despite popular support, however, many anti-gun reform state legislators have blocked efforts to pass gun safety legislation.26 Consequently, guns have continued to fuel violent crime in Minnesota, with the share of guns used in homicides, aggravated assaults, and robberies increasing by 26 percent,27 59 percent, and 50 percent,28 respectively, between 2017 and 2021.
Fortunately, Minnesota leaders have continued to fight for policies proven to reduce gun violence. The state has made significant progress in passing gun safety laws, particularly those that keep firearms away from individuals with domestic violence and stalking convictions.29 Minnesota also requires individuals to obtain a permit before carrying a concealed firearm in public,30 sets certain waiting periods for gun purchasing,31 and has a child access prevention law to hold gun owners accountable when they intentionally or carelessly allow children to have unsupervised access to firearms.32 These actions have proven effective: Compared with other states, Minnesota ranked 44th in terms of gun deaths per every 100,000 people from 2018 to 2021.33
Gun violence in Minnesota: By the numbers
573
Number of Minnesota residents killed by guns in 2021—a record high
811
Average number of Minnesota residents injured by guns each year
$6.6M
Annual cost of gun violence in Minnesota, $105.5 million of which is paid by taxpayers
138%
Increase in Minnesota’s gun homicide rate from 2018 to 2021
More recently, the Minnesota House and Senate, with the support of Gov. Tim Walz (D) and Lt. Gov. Peggy Flanagan (D), took decisive action by 1) expanding background checks to include all firearm sales; and 2) passing an ERPO law that allows law enforcement and family members to petition a court for an order to temporarily remove firearms from an individual in crisis.34 Other notable efforts from Gov. Walz and Lt. Gov. Flanagan include distributing more than 40,000 free gun locks in 2022 as part of the “Make Minnesota Safe & Secure” initiative;35 launching a violent death data dashboard in 2023 through the Minnesota Department of Health to educate and inform stakeholders on trends in suicide, homicide, unintentional firearm deaths, law enforcement interventions, and other undetermined violent deaths in Minnesota;36 and proposing a $300 million investment plan for public safety funding in cities, counties, and Tribal governments across the state as part of the newly revised “One Minnesota” initiative.37
Gov. Walz and the gun safety majority in the Minnesota Legislature should be applauded for championing these commonsense solutions supported by a majority of voters. Policymakers must build on this momentum in the next legislative session by passing additional measures to protect the lives of all Minnesotans. To improve public safety further, Minnesota should consider the eight actions discussed in this report, as they would help keep all its communities safe from gun violence.
See also
Ensure equitable implementation of Minnesota’s ERPO law
In May 2023, the Minnesota Legislature passed legislation allowing a family member, current or former spouse, mental health provider, or law enforcement official to petition a judge for a civil order that temporarily removes firearms from someone who poses an imminent risk of harm to themselves or others.38 These extreme risk protection orders allow concerned parties to intervene legally when there is clear evidence that an individual with a firearm is experiencing a temporary crisis and is at risk of harming themselves or others.39 ERPOs are proven to reduce firearm access for respondents deemed at risk of violence by temporarily removing any firearms in their possession and prohibiting them from purchasing additional firearms for the duration of the order.40 Given that 73 percent of all Minnesota gun deaths in 2021 were suicides and that 80 percent of people with suicidal thoughts show some sign of their intentions,41 the passage of the ERPO law in Minnesota will likely be crucial to saving lives.
The success of any law, however, is contingent on its implementation, including how often it is utilized and public awareness of it. To maximize the lifesaving benefits of the ERPO law, adequate resources must be provided during each step of the ERPO process, including petitioning, processing, and serving orders; firearm removal; court appearances and preparation; and coordination with other behavioral health and social services as needed.
To maximize the lifesaving benefits of [Minnesota’s] ERPO law, adequate resources must be provided during each step of the ERPO process.
To support the successful implementation of its ERPO law, Minnesota should take the following actions:42
- Require de-escalation and crisis intervention training for law enforcement petitioners, as well as specialized training on managing, petitioning, and serving ERPOs.
- Offer tailored training for licensed health care providers about ERPOs and the petitioning process, as well as for clinical coordinators in health care facilities and public health departments where eligible petitioners work.
- Establish a state-designated entity whose staff will enter ERPO information into the National Instant Criminal Background Check System to ensure that gun sales are denied at points of purchase.
- Require that all ERPO case data be entered into a centralized state database to support research and policy development.
To ensure ERPOs do not reinforce racial inequities, Minnesota policymakers must proactively address barriers to use, conduct policy impact assessments that detect unintended consequences for marginalized groups, and involve communities affected by gun violence in each step of the implementation process. Preliminary research suggests that lack of knowledge and lack of trust in formal legal systems are major barriers to ERPO use in affected communities.43 To overcome these obstacles, experts at University of California, Davis recommend providing educational interventions using trusted messengers to promote policy awareness; training mental and behavioral health specialists as part of community crisis response teams that work alongside law enforcement to serve ERPOs, facilitate firearm recovery, and connect respondents to social and behavioral health services; and collecting data on if and when ERPOs lead to criminal charges and whether these charges are pursued in lieu of the civil ERPO mechanism.44 In addition to adopting these practices, Minnesota must consistently assess ERPOs in order to ensure they are applied equitably.
Minnesota can tap federal resources to assist with implementation. Specifically, funding to support these efforts can be leveraged through the Byrne State Crisis Intervention Program,45 which provides $750 million in federal grants over five years to help states implement gun violence intervention programs46 and will provide an estimated $3.7 million per year to support Minnesota’s ERPO law.47
Learn more about ERPOs
Require individuals to have a permit to purchase firearms
Recently, the Minnesota Legislature passed a measure expanding background checks to cover all gun purchases.48 Minnesota should build on this momentum by passing a law that requires all gun purchasers to obtain a license before purchasing a firearm, regardless of type of sale or transfer. Permit-to-purchase laws help identify and screen out people who are barred from legally purchasing firearms.49 Depending on the state, permitting requirements can include an application process, comprehensive background checks, fingerprinting, and mandatory gun safety training.50 Proven to be one of the most effective ways to reduce gun homicide and suicide,51 permit-to-purchase laws have been enacted in at least 13 states and Washington, D.C., to ensure that individuals purchasing certain firearms do not pose a risk to themselves or others.52
Permit-to-purchase laws are effective
56%
Reduction in fatal mass shooting incidents in states with strong handgun purchaser licensing laws
67%
Reduction in fatal mass shooting casualties in states with strong handgun purchaser licensing laws
76%
Reduction in homicide, gun suicide, and interstate trafficking rates in states with both point-of-state background check and permit-to-purchase requirements
These laws work: States with strong handgun purchaser licensing laws see a 56 percent reduction in fatal mass shooting incidents and a 67 percent reduction in mass shooting casualties.53 And states that require both point-of-sale background checks and permit-to-purchase see rates of gun homicide, gun suicide, and interstate trafficking reduce by up to 76 percent.54 For instance, after Connecticut implemented a law requiring individuals to obtain a permit before purchasing a firearm, gun homicide and suicide rates in the state fell by 40 percent and 15 percent, respectively.55 The repeal of a similar law in Missouri, meanwhile, resulted in an estimated 47 percent increase in gun homicide and a 23 percent increase in firearm suicide.56 Moreover, evidence shows that the passage of handgun purchaser licensing laws in Connecticut was associated with a decrease in fatal shootings of police officers, while the repeal of Missouri’s licensing law was linked to an increase in fatal shootings of police.57
The passage of permit-to-purchase, along with the universal background checks that Gov. Tim Walz recently signed into law,58 would help the state mitigate its recent surge in gun homicide, violent crime, and gun suicide rates. In addition to requiring individuals to obtain a permit and pass a background check to purchase firearms from any dealer, Minnesota should consider establishing a program to remove firearms from individuals who are prohibited by law from possessing guns.59 Such a program would enable law enforcement to proactively track and recover firearms from dangerous or at-risk individuals following the issuance of a restraining order or a domestic violence or felony conviction, as well as other incidents that would bar a person from gun ownership.
Minnesota could look to states that recently established similar programs, including Illinois and New York, for guidance.60
Read more on permit-to-purchase legislation in Delaware
Require individuals to safely store their firearms
Safe storage practices are essential in preventing unauthorized access to firearms, as they require that individuals store their firearms locked, unloaded, and separate from ammunition in certain circumstances. While Minnesota has a child access prevention law that holds gun owners criminally liable if failure to properly secure a firearm results in a child accessing it, the state should go a step further by requiring all gun owners to store their firearms locked.
Unsecure firearms in the home can have deadly consequences: From 2015 to 2022, Minnesota had at least 26 unintentional shootings by children, which resulted in nine deaths and 19 injuries.61 These stories are heartbreaking. In August 2021, a 3-year-old girl in Bena, Minnesota, was unintentionally shot and killed by a 5-year-old boy who reportedly accessed an unsecured firearm in the home.62 In April 2022, a 12-year-old boy in Minneapolis allegedly shot and killed his 10-year-old brother unintentionally after the pair found a loaded gun under their father’s pillow.63 And in January 2023, a 14-year-old boy in St. Paul allegedly shot and wounded himself unintentionally after gaining access to an unsecured firearm; fortunately, his injuries were not life-threatening.64
From 2015 to 2022, Minnesota had at least 26 unintentional shootings by children, which resulted in nine deaths and 19 injuries.
Policymakers can help reduce unintentional shootings by and of children, and prevent suicide, by requiring gun owners to safely secure firearms, rather than just imposing liability when failure to do so results in injury or death. A 2015 study found that states that require privately owned guns to be locked have 68 percent lower suicide rates, on average, than states that do not codify this measure into law.65 As noted above, the majority of gun deaths in Minnesota are gun suicides; the passage of safe storage laws would help address this growing crisis. Moreover, such laws protect gun owners from theft. Ninety-five percent of all stolen firearms are taken from private homes and vehicles,66 so safe storage is an important factor in deterring gun theft and preventing guns from being used to facilitate future crime.
Learn more about safe storage
Support community violence intervention (CVI) programs
Community gun violence poses a major challenge in Minnesota. This is particularly true among Black and American Indian populations, who experience homicide rates that are more than 10 times higher than that of white Minnesotans.67 And as mentioned earlier, gun homicide is concentrated in urban counties, with 80 percent of all gun homicides occurring in the seven-county Twin Cities metro area.68 In order to address disproportionate rates of gun violence—particularly in historically underserved communities of color—it is essential to support and promote the development of community-based violence intervention and prevention programs that focus on the most vulnerable people and places.
It should be noted that gun violence in urban communities is often the result of social and economic factors that extend beyond easy access to firearms.69 In fact, the violence frequently occurs in just a few neighborhoods that are at an economic disadvantage, are highly segregated, and have a long history of racial discrimination,70 reinforcing and exacerbating inequalities by burdening people with further trauma and loss.
Efforts that invest in and empower communities can drastically reduce violence, as communities play an enormous role in building their own safety.
Fortunately, efforts that invest in and empower communities can drastically reduce violence, as communities play an enormous role in building their own safety. One of the most effective ways policymakers can reduce community violence is by supporting and promoting the development of community-based violence intervention and prevention programs.71 These programs often employ trusted community members with lived experience of gun violence or incarceration as violence interrupters and empower them to identify individuals in the community who are at the highest risk of perpetrating or experiencing violence.72 Interrupters then work to build relationships and provide support services to at-risk individuals in an attempt to de-escalate community conflicts before they turn violent.
Such programs have shown great promise in communities across the nation and are critical to reducing gun violence.73 In Minneapolis alone, more than 700 survivors of violence have successfully received support through “Next Step,” a hospital-based intervention program that reduces the risk of violent revictimization and retaliatory cycles by connecting survivors with necessary support services.74
Many states have already directed federal funds toward increased efforts for evidence-based community violence interventions. For example, in 2021, Wisconsin allocated $25 million of its American Rescue Plan funds to grants for violence intervention programs, while Pennsylvania allocated $100.5 million to CVI programs over the next 2 1/2 years, and Illinois committed $250 million in grants to community organizations over the next three years.75 While some cities in Minnesota have invested additional funds—such as Minneapolis, which allocated $3.8 million to support community-based intervention services76—the state has only committed $2.5 million of its American Rescue Plan funds toward CVI programming.77
Minnesota can protect and support its most affected communities by expanding investments in community violence intervention programming. Specifically, it should facilitate grants for community organizations to develop, build, and replicate evidence-based violence intervention programs that are customized to fit the needs of individual jurisdictions and seek to proactively interrupt cycles of violence. Support should be targeted toward communities with high rates of gun homicide and nonfatal gun injuries—such as Minnesota’s Black and American Indian and Alaska Native populations. To complement expanded state funding for these programs, Minnesota state departments and law enforcement agencies should utilize all available federal resources from the Community-Based Violence Intervention and Prevention Initiative and the State Crisis Intervention Fund to support and develop comprehensive, evidence-based violence intervention and prevention programs in the state’s most affected communities.78 Minnesota can leverage additional funding for hospital-based violence intervention programs, such as “Next Step,” by passing legislation or a state plan amendment to allow violence prevention professionals to be reimbursed through Medicaid dollars.79 At least five other states have passed such a measure.80
Learn more about CVI programs
Improve community trust and curb retaliatory violence through police accountability measures
Minnesota policymakers can also take meaningful steps toward improving community safety through targeted interventions to improve gun crime clearance rates. Minnesota struggles with low clearance rates for violent crimes: In 2021, law enforcement cleared just 32.6 percent of all violent crimes in the state.81 And in Minneapolis, police closed less than half of all gun homicides and fewer than 1 in 5 violent gun assaults in 2020.82
This failure to fully investigate and resolve violent incidents can be devastating for communities. Low clearance rates are associated with higher levels of violent crime83 and increase the risk of retaliatory violence, as people are unwilling to rely on police and other formal avenues to address violent crime84—especially in communities of color.85 Additionally, this distrust can exacerbate already tense relationships between communities and law enforcement and lead youth who are at risk of being both victims and perpetrators of future violence to choose other means of protection and justice.86 As a result, perpetrators of violence against Indigenous and Black people in these communities too often are not brought to justice.87
33%
Clearance rate for all violent crimes in Minnesota in 2021
Minnesota policymakers can curb retaliatory violence and improve community trust by increasing state support for investigations into homicides and nonfatal shootings. Targeted efforts to increase clearance rates for these crimes have already seen significant success: The Boston Police Department experienced a 10 percent increase in homicide closures over seven years following efforts to provide additional staffing, enhanced training, and other management practices.88 Similarly, less than a year after establishing a firearm assault team dedicated to supporting investigations into nonfatal shootings, the Denver Police Department saw its clearance rate for these crimes increase from 39 percent to 65 percent.89
Minnesota could similarly support efforts to close violent gun crime investigations by investing in its Bureau of Criminal Apprehension (BCA), an essential but underresourced tool that state law enforcement can use to process forensic evidence such as DNA, bullet casings, and fingerprints.90 Investing in the BCA would allow the agency to hire more staff and improve processing times, two major challenges it currently faces.91
Low clearance rates are associated with higher levels of violent crime and increase the risk of retaliatory violence, as people are unwilling to rely on police and other formal avenues to address violent crime.
Additionally, the Minnesota Department of Public Safety should provide grants to local agencies to adopt practices proven successful in increasing case closure rates in Denver and other jurisdictions that have undertaken targeted efforts to close gun crime investigations. These practices can include providing additional training for detectives investigating homicides and nonfatal shootings, expanding resources for shooting victims and family members, and hiring more investigators and data analysts to support investigations.92
Finally, it is important that law enforcement is investigating these crimes in a way that is appropriate, professional, and suited to the needs of the affected communities. Police misconduct significantly erodes community trust, which, in turn, can fuel cycles of retaliatory violence and contribute to witnesses being unwilling to supply information to police and testify in court. Given that at least 87 people have died since 2015 as a result of lethal force by police, the state should require law enforcement to collect and report data on lethal and nonlethal use of force.93
Raise the age of gun purchase and possession to 21
Guns are the leading cause of death for children and teens in the United States, meaning that, too often, youth are at the center of gun violence tragedies.94 Allowing youth under 21 to legally access firearms carries substantial risks and can have deadly consequences: Three different shooters under the age of 21 in Uvalde, Texas; Buffalo, New York; and Parkland, Florida, were able to carry out horrific mass shootings after legally purchasing a firearm in their respective state, killing 48 people in total and leaving at least 34 more with lifelong injuries.95
Under federal law, an individual purchasing long guns, including assault weapons, or handguns from a licensed firearm dealer must be a minimum age of 18 and 21, respectively.96 Yet these requirements are even weaker when applied to unlicensed sellers; in these cases, there is a minimum age requirement of 18 for handguns and no minimum age requirement for long guns.97
81%
Share of registered voters who support raising the legal age to buy a gun to 21
Unsurprisingly, 22 states have gone beyond federal law and passed legislation to set stronger minimum age requirements for the purchase of certain firearms.98 These laws are effective: In states that limited handgun sales to those 21 and older, suicide rates among 18- to 20-year-olds dropped by nearly 20 percent from 2001 to 2017.99 In contrast, states with a minimum purchase age of 18 had, on average, 344 more suicides per year.100
Efforts to raise age-limit requirements for gun purchases have broad support: An April 2023 Fox News poll found that 81 percent of registered voters support raising the legal age to buy a gun to 21.101 Policymakers in Minnesota should acknowledge voter demands by passing a law that bars individuals under 21 from possessing and purchasing any kind of firearm, whether from private or licensed dealers.
See also
Prevent guns from being stolen and used to commit future violence
Stolen guns pose a significant risk to community safety.102 Whether taken from a gun store or an individual gun owner’s collection, stolen guns often head straight into the illegal underground gun market, where they are sold, traded, and used to facilitate violent crimes. Indeed, a Trace analysis of 23,000 stolen guns recovered by police found that most of these firearms were later used in crimes such as robberies, murders, and kidnappings.103
From 2011 to 2021, background checks in Minnesota increased by 180 percent, indicating a significant spike in firearm purchasing.104 With more and more people purchasing firearms, it is paramount that Minnesota take steps to mitigate the risk of guns being stolen from their owners and used to fuel illegal activity. By requiring private gun owners to promptly report when a firearm is lost or stolen, Minnesota can strengthen law enforcement efforts to track down gun trafficking networks and identify straw purchasers. Reporting requirements are proven to reduce illegal gun activity: Research has shown a 46 percent reduction in illicit gun activity in states that have enacted mandatory reporting requirements compared with states that have not.105
46%
Reduction in illicit gun activity in states that have enacted mandatory reporting requirements, compared with states that have not
Although mandatory reporting is an essential measure for preventing guns stolen from private owners from being used in future illegal activity, Minnesota must also address the risk of guns stolen from licensed dealers. In 2021, there were 23 separate gun dealer thefts in Minnesota, with a total of 75 guns stolen or lost.106 And since 2019, the number of guns recovered by law enforcement in Minnesota within two years of the first sale makes up 46 percent of all guns recovered in the state. This points to ongoing gun trafficking,107 as law enforcement considers firearms with a “time to crime”—the time that elapses between when a gun is purchased and when it is used in connection with a crime—of three years or less as likely objects of gun trafficking.108
With more and more people purchasing firearms, it is paramount that Minnesota take steps to mitigate the risk of guns being stolen from their owners and used to fuel illegal activity.
To reduce the number of crime guns originating from dealers and to enhance gun dealer oversight, Minnesota should pass state licensing requirements for gun dealers. Fifteen states and Washington, D.C., have already passed such requirements,109 which are linked to a 64 percent lower rate of gun trafficking,110 on average, and enable state agencies to pursue increased oversight over gun dealers in their jurisdictions.
Enact a state-level gun industry liability law
Under the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA), gun manufacturers, dealers, and advertisers are granted blanket immunity in civil litigation. This prevents plaintiffs from filing lawsuits against the gun industry, even in cases where negligence and dangerous practices lead to harm.111
PLCAA was enacted in 2005 following aggressive lobbying campaigns by the gun industry to shield gun manufacturers and dealers from lawsuits—which likely became a concern for the industry after more than 40 cities filed lawsuits against gun industry actors alleging negligent and dangerous sales practices that resulted in gun trafficking and violent criminal activity.112 The passage of PLCAA has since resulted in the dismissal of nearly every lawsuit against the gun industry; only a handful reach a jury trial.113 It also prevents the use of civil litigation to incentivize large-scale safety improvements, a practice used to spark changes in the automotive, tobacco, and pharmaceutical industries.114
Establishing legal avenues for survivors and municipal leaders to seek redress from the courts for harms caused by gun industry negligence protects victims of violence … and encourages industry actors to adopt best practices.
PLCAA has made it difficult to hold bad actors accountable and has likely prevented victims from seeking justice.115 But the legislation provides limited exemptions to the industry’s civil immunity116 and does not prevent states from passing legislation that allows lawsuits to proceed against gun manufacturers and dealers whose alleged negligence had deadly consequences.117 Establishing legal avenues for survivors and municipal leaders to seek redress from the courts for harms caused by gun industry negligence protects victims of violence; empowers communities to fight back against bad actors who irresponsibly fuel the criminal firearm market; and encourages industry actors to adopt best practices.
Minnesota should therefore pass state legislation that allows members of the gun industry to be held liable if their negligence fails to prevent the sale or distribution of firearms to prohibited individuals, straw purchasers, or gun traffickers. For guidance, Minnesota can look to New York, Delaware, New Jersey, California, and Washington, which have all recently passed legislation to allow civil suits to proceed against gun manufacturers and dealers who knowingly violated the law and refuse to take reasonable actions to prevent selling guns to straw purchasers and gun traffickers.118
Learn more about PLCAA and gun industry immunity
Conclusion
Gun violence in Minnesota poses a major public health challenge, killing 1,988 residents from 2018 to 2021119 and injuring an average 811 residents each year.120 In addition to shattering lives and harming communities, gun violence costs Minnesota $6.6 billion each year, $105.5 million of which is paid by taxpayers.121 Fortunately, the Minnesota Legislature, with the support of Gov. Walz, recently enacted policies that will meaningfully address gun violence in the state. To build on this momentum and keep communities safe, policymakers should consider the tools, policies, and guidance detailed in this report.