Second Amendment Expert Claims Minnesota Democrats Blocked Her Testimony to Dodge Policy Debate

Gun Rights Expert Alleges Minnesota Democrats Suppressed Her Testimony

A prominent Second Amendment scholar is calling out Minnesota Democrats for allegedly attempting to sideline policy opponents during a high-stakes legislative hearing on gun control. Amy Swearer, a senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom with deep expertise in firearms policy, claims that Democratic members of a Minnesota House committee arbitrarily rejected her written submission and resisted allowing her to testify in person — ultimately granting her just two minutes at the podium.

Emotional Appeals Over Policy Debate

Swearer told Fox News Digital that she believes lawmakers were deliberately steering the conversation away from substantive policy analysis.

"I think really at the core of it, that's what they wanted to avoid," Swearer explained. "To the extent that they could keep this focused on the Annunciation shooting, and to prevent people like myself from coming in and saying — well, first of all, these policies would not have prevented a single death."

The hearing carried significant emotional weight, as parents and survivors of the 2024 shooting at Annunciation Catholic Church in Minneapolis testified in favor of the proposed legislation. The gunman, who later died by suicide, killed two young children and wounded more than two dozen others during the attack.

"Parents in our community don't sleep all the way through the night anymore," said Jackie Flavin, whose 10-year-old daughter Harper was among those killed. "Because when we send our children out into the world, we know that there are weapons out there capable of turning an ordinary morning into something unthinkable in seconds."

The Bills in Question

The two pieces of legislation are part of a sweeping gun reform package championed by Democratic Governor Tim Walz in the wake of the church tragedy. The first bill would broadly restrict future sales of many semiautomatic firearms by redefining what qualifies as a "military-style assault weapon" under state law, while also placing new limitations on existing owners of such weapons. The second bill would ban the manufacture, sale, transfer, and possession of ammunition magazines capable of holding more than ten rounds.

Both bills are currently stalled in committee after deadlocking at a 10-10 tie vote, split strictly along party lines at the conclusion of the contentious hearing. Democratic offices on the committee did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Testimony Rejection and Selective Enforcement Allegations

Swearer said her written testimony — which included a detailed analysis of multi-victim shootings across Minnesota — was rejected by the committee on the grounds that it contained hyperlinks, a violation of committee rules. However, she accused Democratic members of selectively enforcing that rule against her while allowing others to submit similar materials without consequence.

"They did not want this to turn into a battle of actual experts on policy," she said. "I want to be clear, that was very emotional. It was difficult. These were grieving people, and understandably so — but I think very clearly, that is what the Democrats wanted to focus on."

Swearer had been invited to testify by the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus. The organization's director of government relations, Anna Leamy, also testified against the bills and publicly noted that Swearer and other national experts, along with everyday Minnesotans, had been restricted from participating. Swearer credited Leamy's remarks with prompting Democrats to allow her brief two-minute appearance.

Additionally, the National Foundation for Gun Rights confirmed that its executive director, Hannah Hill, was also denied the opportunity to testify.

Constitutional Concerns Raised

Beyond the procedural disputes, Swearer raised serious constitutional objections to both bills, describing them as legally flawed from the outset.

"They're problematic from start to finish," she said, adding that the assault weapons bill was "one of the most restrictive gun bans I have ever seen in terms of the definition."

While it is standard practice for committee chairs to limit witness participation due to time constraints, critics argue that such restrictions can easily become a tool for selectively suppressing viewpoints that challenge the majority's legislative agenda.