Minnesota Democrats Leverage Robin Westman Killings for Fundraising
It is rather unsettling to observe that the Minnesota Democratic party is capitalizing on the horrific sequence of killings committed by Robin Westman to fuel their fundraising efforts. They subtly hint at a potential failure by the ‘Minnesota Republicans’ to take appropriate action given the circumstances. The idea that Westman’s actions, which involved the use of multiple types of firearms, necessitate a prohibition on a specific kind of gun is subtly insinuated. Governor Tim Walz mentioned the possibility of convening a special legislative session primarily to discuss expanding gun control laws, including the proposed ban on ‘assault rifles’.
The Democrats of Minnesota are planning to make gun control the linchpin issue in the 2026 elections, much like the emphasis put on the abortion topic in 2022. Their tactics hint at deflecting the blame tied to alleged shortcomings that have plagued their solo rule over the state. Curiously enough, when Democrats had the reins of power in 2023, they did not move for an ‘assault rifle’ prohibition. Instead, their focus was on the passage of ‘red flag’ laws meant to prevent potentially unstable individuals, such as Robin Westman, from possessing firearms.
Unfortunately, it is evident that these measures were insufficient in preventing this particular case. It’s a moot point that Democrats can push for a rifle prohibition as long as they secure the support of even a single House Republican, given the current tie in the house at 67-67. While this would mean every Democrat in both houses voting in favor of the ban and emerging triumphant in the forthcoming special elections, the probability of achieving such unity is suspect.
A potential hurdle in implementing such a prohibition is the potential violation of the constitution as outlined in the Heller and Bruen rulings. It’s an interesting dichotomy as numerous federal appellate courts have greenlit such prohibitions while at least one district court has declared such a prohibition unconstitutional. So far, the Supreme Court has tactfully avoided passing judgments on these cases, though they will eventually have to.
Considering the established legal precedents set by the Heller and Bruen rulings, it seems probable that the existing Court would deem ‘assault rifle’ bans unconstitutional. There is also the question of due process principles, which may play a significant role, given that ‘assault rifle’ bans are deemed by many as wholly unreasonable. In the strictest sense, ‘assault rifles’ is a politically charged term without a concrete definition; it essentially refers to a semiautomatic rifle featuring a synthetic black stock as opposed to a traditional brown wooden one.
No one has yet proposed a total ban on all semiautomatic rifles, or firearms in general, that might stand up to judicial review. So, what is the logical reasoning behind proposing a ban specifically on the black synthetic stock versions? However, considerations like this might not yield answers in the immediate future. In many ways, it is the 2026 election that holds the most immediate importance for the Democrats, irrespective of the standing law or Constitutional provisions.
It is worth noting that their claims stating donations up to $75 to their House caucus being refunded by taxpayers is factually accurate. This statute understandably raises eyebrows in the state of Minnesota. The fundraising exploit on behalf of the Democratic party isn’t just distasteful due to its connection with the Westman killings, but also because it is indirectly financed by taxpayers.