[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":3,"doc-seo-435083-105":59,"doc-detail-435083-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"success",[7,13,18,23,28,33,38,43,48,51,55],{"id":8,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":10,"show_sort_weight":11,"slug":12},1,"Document","Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":14,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":15,"show_sort_weight":16,"slug":17},2,"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":19,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":20,"show_sort_weight":21,"slug":22},4,"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":24,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":25,"show_sort_weight":26,"slug":27},5,"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":29,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":30,"show_sort_weight":31,"slug":32},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":34,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":35,"show_sort_weight":36,"slug":37},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":39,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":40,"show_sort_weight":41,"slug":42},8,"Research & Report",30,"research-report",{"id":44,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":45,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":47},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":46,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":49,"show_sort_weight":46,"slug":50},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":52,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":53,"show_sort_weight":52,"slug":54},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":56,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":9,"category_name":57,"show_sort_weight":24,"slug":58},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":60,"data":61},"ok",{"site_id":62,"language":63,"slug":64,"title":65,"keywords":66,"description":67,"schema_data":68,"social_meta":123,"head_meta":125,"extra_data":127,"updated_unix":129},105,"en","complaint-for-declaratory-and-injunctive-relief-part-united-states-v-state-of-minnesota-city-of-minneapolis-and-city-of-st-paul","Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - Part - United States v. State of Minnesota, City of Minneapolis, and City of St. Paul","","Complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief filed in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota by the United States against the State of Minnesota and the Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul. The pleading challenges Minnesota’s hybrid waiting period and permit-to-purchase regulatory scheme as violating the Second Amendment, seeking to vindicate constitutional rights of law-abiding Minnesota citizens. It alleges state and local enforcement of unconstitutional restrictions under 34 U.S.C. § 12601.",{"@graph":69,"@context":122},[70,84,105],{"@type":71,"itemListElement":72},"BreadcrumbList",[73,77,79,82],{"item":74,"name":75,"@type":76,"position":8},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",{"item":78,"name":9,"@type":76,"position":14},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/",{"item":80,"name":35,"@type":76,"position":81},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/healthcare/",3,{"item":83,"name":65,"@type":76,"position":19},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/complaint-for-declaratory-and-injunctive-relief-part-united-states-v-state-of-minnesota-city-of-minneapolis-and-city-of-st-paul/435083/",{"url":83,"name":65,"@type":85,"image":86,"author":91,"headline":65,"publisher":94,"fileFormat":97,"inLanguage":63,"description":67,"dateModified":98,"datePublished":99,"encodingFormat":97,"isAccessibleForFree":100,"interactionStatistic":101},"DigitalDocument",{"url":87,"@type":88,"width":89,"height":90},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/complaint-for-declaratory-and-injunctive-relief-part-united-states-v-state-of-minnesota-city-of-minneapolis-and-city-of-st-paul/435083.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":92,"@type":93},"Maya Linwood","Person",{"url":74,"name":95,"@type":96},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-30","2026-09-29",true,{"@type":102,"interactionType":103,"userInteractionCount":39},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":104},"ViewAction",{"@type":106,"mainEntity":107},"FAQPage",[108,114,118],{"name":109,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":111},"Who is the plaintiff and who are the defendants in the complaint?","Question",{"text":112,"@type":113},"The plaintiff is the United States of America. Defendants include the State of Minnesota, the City of Minneapolis, and the City of St. Paul.","Answer",{"name":115,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":116},"What legal challenge does the complaint bring regarding Minnesota’s firearms regulations?",{"text":117,"@type":113},"The complaint challenges Minnesota’s permit-to-purchase and waiting-period regulatory scheme as violating the Second Amendment.",{"name":119,"@type":110,"acceptedAnswer":120},"What kind of court remedies does the United States seek?",{"text":121,"@type":113},"The United States seeks declaratory and injunctive relief authorized under 34 U.S.C. § 12601 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":83,"og:type":124,"og:title":65,"og:site_name":95,"og:description":67},"article",{"robots":126,"canonical":83},"index,follow",{"doc_id":128,"site_id":62},435083,1790925209,{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":131},{"doc_id":128,"user_id":132,"nickname":92,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":34,"category_name":35,"doc_title":65,"doc_description":67,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":39,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":8,"is_downloadable":8,"audit_status":8,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":63,"site_id":62,"html_lang":63,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":67,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145,"preview_page_count":4},962084928432,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_155a257f0dc6eb9ab79c44ca47cae57d","CASE 0:26-cv-04123 Doc. 1 Filed 09/24/26 Page 1 of 13  \nUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT  \nDISTRICT OF MINNESOTA  \nUNITED STATES OF AMERICA,  \nCase No.  \nPlaintiff,  \nv.  \nSTATE OF MINNESOTA; CITY OF MINNEAPOLIS; and CITY OF ST. PAUL  \nDefendants.  \nCOMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF  \nPlaintiff the United States of America submits the following Complaint against  \nDefendants the State of Minnesota (State), the City of Minneapolis (CM), and the City of  \nSt. Paul (CSP) . CM and CSP shall be referred to collectively as the “Cities.”  \nINTRODUCTION  \n1. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution declares that “the  \nright of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” U.S. Const. amend. II.  \n2. The Second Amendment protects the pre-existing right to keep and bear  \narms. In McDonald v. City of Chicago, Ill., 561 U.S. 742 (2010), the Supreme Court held  \nthat this right is among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty  \nand incorporated it under the Fourteenth Amendment, thereby making it applicable to the  \nstates. Id. at 778. The Second Amendment protects the right of law-abiding Americans  \nto possess and use weapons that are in common use for lawful purposes. See New York  \nCASE 0:26-cv-04123 Doc. 1 Filed 09/24/26 Page 2 of 13  \nState Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 21 (2022); District of Columbia v.  \nHeller, 554 U.S. 570, 625-27 (2008) .  \n3. The Second Amendment protects the right to possess arms and necessarily protects the right to acquire those protected arms. Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d 684, 704 (7th Cir. 2011) . The core Second Amendment right would mean very little without the ability to acquire firearms. Nguyen v. Bonta, 140 F.4th 1237, 1241 (9th Cir. 2025)(citation omitted) . “[A]cquiring, purchasing, and possessing firearms is a necessary predicate to keeping and bearing them.” Ortega v. Grisham, 148 F.4th 1134, 1143 (10th Cir. 2025) (citation omitted) . Laws which hobble the Second Amendment and corresponding rights are unconstitutional. See Wolford v. Lopez, 146 S. Ct. 2032, 2041 (2026) .  \n4. The State’s permit to purchase and waiting period regulatory scheme violates the Second Amendment for the more than ninety percent of Minnesota citizens who do not have a carry permit. The Cities’ law enforcement officers are charged with enforcing the State’s unconstitutional restrictions and are doing so. Such law enforcement conduct is unlawful pursuant to 34 U.S.C. § 12601(a) (Section 12601) . The United States brings this action to vindicate the constitutional rights of the law-abiding citizens of Minnesota.  \nPARTIES  \n5. Plaintiff is the United States of America.  \n6. The State of Minnesota is a state within the United States of America.  \n7. Minneapolis, Minnesota is a municipality.  \nCASE 0:26-cv-04123 Doc. 1 Filed 09/24/26 Page 3 of 13  \n8. St. Paul, Minnesota is a municipality.  \nJURISDICTION AND VENUE  \n9. This Court has jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1345.  \n10. The Court has authority to grant the remedies Plaintiff seeks pursuant to the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, 34 U. S.C. § 12601. The United States is authorized to initiate this action against Defendants under that Act.  \n11. The declaratory and injunctive relief that the United States seeks is authorized by 34 U.S.C. § 12601(b) and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.  \n12. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to this action occurred therein.  \nGENERAL ALLEGATIONS  \nI. Regulatory Background: the State’s Hybrid Waiting Period and Permit to Purchase Scheme.  \n13. People who desire to bear firearms in public in Minnesota may do so by obtaining a carry permit (Carry Permit) . See Minn. Stat. § 624.714.  \n14. This action does not concern public carry. It concerns armed self-defense within the confines of a person’s home,“where the","cbCais36URJ6zN4V","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCais36URJ6zN4V","pdf",232380,13,"English","# Introduction\n# Parties\n# Jurisdiction and Venue\n# General Allegations\n## Regulatory Background: the State’s Hybrid Waiting Period and Permit to Purchase Scheme","[{\"question\":\"Who is the plaintiff and who are the defendants in the complaint?\",\"answer\":\"The plaintiff is the United States of America. Defendants include the State of Minnesota, the City of Minneapolis, and the City of St. Paul.\"},{\"question\":\"What legal challenge does the complaint bring regarding Minnesota’s firearms regulations?\",\"answer\":\"The complaint challenges Minnesota’s permit-to-purchase and waiting-period regulatory scheme as violating the Second Amendment.\"},{\"question\":\"What kind of court remedies does the United States seek?\",\"answer\":\"The United States seeks declaratory and injunctive relief authorized under 34 U.S.C. § 12601 and 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202.\"}]","Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief - Part - United States v. State of Minnesota, City of Minneapolis, and City of St. Paul | PDF",1790671795,33]