Minnesota’s House of Representatives is reviewing several new bills that could mean major victories for gun rights supporters in the state.

Three major bills were introduced last week and a fourth is currently being worked on to loosen restrictions and support citizens’ Second Amendment rights. Each bill was authored by House Republicans, according to Twin Cities Pioneer Press.

One bill looks to clarify and extend Minnesota law on the “use of force in defense of home and person.” Currently in Minnesota, people are required by law to “retreat in cases of self-defense outside the home,” meaning that unless someone is being threatened with great bodily harm in their home they are not allowed to exercise their constitutional right to defend themselves.

Another bill will make constitutional carry, or the right to carry a handgun without a permit based on the fact that it is a constitutional right, legal in Minnesota. The purpose of the third bill is to loosen the restrictions for handgun permits, including reducing the fee by half and no longer requiring a permit renewal.

Although in previous years limited support for similar bills have shut down gun law reform in Minnesota, with current events and the political climate, authors of the bill think that the support in the state government is finally strong enough to pass these into laws.

“I think nationally, maybe because of fear or terrorism or crime, there’s more interest than ever,” Rep. Tony Cornish said, the Twin Cities Pioneer Press reported.

Marit Brock, a volunteer chapter leader with Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, said “These same bills (are) being introduced all over the country,” according to the Twin Cities Pioneer Press. States like Texas recently passed a constitutional carry bill and New Hampshire is currently in the process of doing the same.

The fourth bill, not yet introduced, will allow permits from all other states to be recognized in Minnesota, or at least give some clear reason why they would not be. Currently, Minnesota law states that some permits are not valid in the state because they are “not similar” to Minnesota, but no criteria for what is similar or not is stated.