A heated debate over gun control in Minnesota is drawing national attention after a prominent Second Amendment policy expert claimed lawmakers tried to limit her voice during a key legislative hearing.

Amy Swearer, a senior legal fellow specializing in gun policy, says Democratic members of a Minnesota House committee attempted to sideline her testimony while considering two controversial firearm bills. According to Swearer, the effort was meant to keep the focus on emotional testimony rather than a detailed policy debate.

The hearing came in response to last year’s tragic shooting at Annunciation Catholic Church in Minneapolis, where a gunman killed two children and wounded more than two dozen people before later taking his own life. Families of victims and survivors spoke before lawmakers, delivering powerful and emotional accounts of how the attack changed their lives.

For many lawmakers backing the proposed legislation, those personal stories helped underscore the urgency of tighter gun restrictions. One parent who lost a child in the shooting told the committee that families in the community now live with constant fear when sending their children out into the world.

But Swearer argues that emotional testimony should not replace a rigorous examination of the policies themselves. She said her written testimony—which included research on multi-victim shootings in Minnesota—was initially rejected because it contained hyperlinks, a technical violation of committee rules. Swearer claims the rule was enforced selectively against her while other submissions were accepted.

Ultimately, after pushback from gun rights advocates, Swearer was allowed to speak—but only briefly. She said she was given about two minutes to present her views before the committee.

According to Swearer, lawmakers were reluctant to allow extensive policy discussion that could challenge the proposed legislation. She contends that the measures under consideration would not have prevented the church shooting that prompted the push for reform.

The two bills are part of a broader gun control package introduced by Democratic Governor Tim Walz following the tragedy. One proposal would ban future sales of many firearms classified as “semiautomatic military-style assault weapons” by expanding the legal definition of such weapons and imposing restrictions on existing owners. The second bill targets ammunition magazines, banning those capable of holding more than ten rounds.

Swearer strongly criticized the legislation, calling it overly broad and raising constitutional concerns. She described the proposed firearm restrictions as among the most sweeping she has seen.

Other gun rights advocates echoed her concerns during the hearing. Representatives from pro-gun organizations argued that limiting expert testimony prevented lawmakers from hearing a full range of perspectives on the issue.

Despite the intense debate, the legislation remains stalled for now. The committee ultimately split evenly along party lines, resulting in a 10–10 vote that halted the bills’ progress—at least temporarily.

As lawmakers weigh emotional testimony against policy analysis, the clash highlights how deeply divided the gun control debate remains in Minnesota and across the country.