Foremost among the familiar proposals is the call for another "assault weapons" ban. It is a policy heavy with symbolic resonance, but light on demonstrated efficacy. The federal Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 has been exhaustively studied. The National Institute of Justice, tasked with evaluating its impact, concluded candidly that "we cannot clearly credit the ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence."

Any state-level reprise would encounter the same limitations. No workable proposal has been advanced to address the tens of thousands of AR-15-style rifles already lawfully owned in Minnesota. Nor would a ban have addressed the circumstances of Wednesday's attack: The perpetrator carried not only a rifle but also a shotgun and at least one pistol. To suggest that an "assault weapons" prohibition would have prevented the tragedy is to mistake a political slogan for a serious solution. Moreover, in the wake of Supreme Court cases Heller (2008) and Bruen (2022), such measures would confront daunting constitutional obstacles.