Gun rights expert says Minnesota Dems tried to block her testimony on firearm bills to 'avoid' policy debate

A Second Amendment expert is accusing Minnesota Democrats of attempting to sideline policy advocates as they push for passage of a pair of gun control bills, arguing the lawmakers are leaning on emotional appeals instead of debating the measures’ real-world impact.

Amy Swearer, a senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom who specializes in gun policy, told Fox News Digital in an interview that Democratic members of a Minnesota House panel appeared to arbitrarily reject her written testimony ahead of a key hearing on the bills and resisted allowing her to testify in person. Swearer was ultimately able to testify for about two minutes.

"I think really at the core of it, that's what they wanted to avoid, 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," Swearer said.

FEDERAL APPEALS COURT RULES CALIFORNIA AMMUNITION BACKGROUND CHECKS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

Democratic offices of the committee did not respond to multiple requests for comments since Friday.

The hearing included heavy moments during which parents of victims and victims themselves of last year’s shooting at Annunciation Catholic Church in Minneapolis testified in support of the bills. The shooter, who later died by suicide, killed two young children and injured more than two dozen others.

"Parents in our community don’t sleep all the way through the night anymore," Jackie Flavin, who lost her 10-year-old daughter Harper in the shooting, testified. "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 two bills, as they are currently written, are stalled in committee after receiving a 10-10 tie vote along party lines at the close of the contentious hearing.

Swearer said the committee rejected her written testimony, which included an analysis of multi-victim shootings in the state, because it contained hyperlinks, which was against committee rules. She accused Democrats on the committee of selectively enforcing that rule against her but not against others.

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

The bills were part of a sweeping gun control package introduced by Democratic Gov. Tim Walz in response to the church shooting.

One of the bills would broadly ban future sales of many "semiautomatic military-style assault weapons" by redefining the firearms under state law and would impose new restrictions on current owners of such guns. The other would prohibit the manufacture, sale, transfer, and possession of large-capacity ammunition magazines, which the bill defines as those with more than ten rounds.

Swearer, who was invited to the hearing by the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, said the bills were unconstitutional.

NRA SUES CALIFORNIA OVER BAN ON GLOCK-STYLE FIREARMS: 'VIOLATES THE SECOND AMENDMENT'

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

The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus's director of governor relations, Anna Leamy, also testified against the bills during the hearing and noted that Swearer and other "national experts and everyday Minnesotans" were limited from participating, which Swearer said "goaded" Democrats into allowing her to speak for two minutes.

The National Foundation for Gun Rights said its executive director, Hannah Hill, was also told she could not testify. Committee chairs typically limit witness participation at hearings for time purposes, but those restrictions can spur accusations of selectively suppressing certain voices.