by Jerry Dunleavy
A number of Republicans suggested carrying a gun to a protest is an indicator of violence, while Democrats suddenly claim to care about Second Amendment rights they had sought to ban.
A number of Trump Administration officials, along with Democratic leaders and gun control groups, seemed to switch jerseys on the Second Amendment and whether it was okay to bring a firearm to a protest in the wake of the shooting of Alex Pretti by federal agents in Minneapolis this weekend.
Pretti was shot by federal law enforcement in Minnesota shortly after being disarmed by one of the officers as the Border Patrol agents sought to restrain him on the ground during a chaotic scrum on Saturday.
Key federal officials — including Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem — have suggested that the fact that Pretti was on the streets of Minneapolis during anti-ICE activities while carrying a concealed handgun and multiple ammunition magazines de facto demonstrated that he was not actually there to protest peacefully.
Conversely, Democrats like California Gov. Gavin Newsom and a host of gun control groups — who have all long sought to limit gun rights and to criminalize the carrying of firearms at public protests — purported to defend Pretti’s Second Amendment right to be armed.
Minnesota police have repeatedly said that Pretti was legally permitted to carry a concealed weapon. DHS and President Donald Trump shared a photo of Pretti’s alleged gun after the shooting. Pretti was shot multiple times by officers within moments of his pistol being removed from its waistband holster by one of the agents. A number of Republican lawmakers have called for an investigation.
Noem, FBI Director Kash Patel, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and other Trump officials all seemed to suggest that the act itself of showing up with a concealed firearm — even a legally concealed one — was an indicator of non-peaceful or violent intent by Pretti.
Dems show situational ethics at work
Meanwhile, even though Newsom and a host of leftwing gun control groups have relentlessly sought to restrict Second Amendment rights and to ban the legalized carrying of firearms at public demonstrations over the alleged danger this posed, they are now defending his right to carry a pistol.
The pro-Second Amendment Gun Owners Caucus said Saturday that it was “deeply concerned” by the shooting of Pretti, stating that “according to local officials, the man was legally armed, a firearm was recovered at the scene, and he is believed to have been a lawful gun owner and a permit-to-carry holder.”
“Every peaceable Minnesotan has the right to keep and bear arms—including while attending protests, acting as observers, or exercising their First Amendment rights,” the gun caucus said. “These rights do not disappear when someone is lawfully armed, and they must be respected and protected at all times.”
Dana Loesch, a popular conservative commentator and former NRA spokeswoman, also weighed in.
“Yes, you absolutely can carry at a protest. Anyone who tells you otherwise is an anti-2A statist. No, you absolutely cannot interrupt a federal op while armed and tussle with LEO [law enforcement officers]. That's how tragic things happen. This isn't rocket science,” Loesch said on X.
Loesch added: “You don't have to accept the media's ‘if you're pro-2A then you're against ICE’ narrative. The people who tried to make Pretti a felon for simply carrying his apparent EDC [everyday carry] are the ones trying to play bouncer for 2A right now. Don't fall for it.”
Border Patrol Union: Brandishing a sidearm at a protest invites "severe consequences"
Noem said during a press conference over the weekend that the federal agents "responded according to their training, and took action to defend the officer's life and those of the public around him.” The DHS chief said that “I don't know of any peaceful protester that shows up with a gun and ammunition rather than a sign” and that “this is a violent riot when you have someone showing up with weapons and are using them to assault law enforcement officers.”
Noem also claimed to reporters over the weekend that Pretti had been "wishing to inflict harm on these officers coming, brandishing like that." The Border Patrol Union similarly contended on X that “when a supposed ‘peaceful’ protester brings a weapon (such as a loaded handgun) and brandishes it, there are going to severe consequences and repercussions.”
There is no current video evidence indicating that Pretti ever brandished his firearm.
“It’s also breaking the law to concealed carry in Minnesota without an ID on you,” Noem said on The Sunday Briefing on Fox News.
Law says it's "a petty misdemeanor" and $25 fine
Rob Doar, the general counsel of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, replied to a video clip of Noem by arguing that “carrying without an ID or Permit Card is NOT a crime in MN. It's a $25 petty misdemeanor ticket, which must be dismissed once the information is provided. Your firearm is not subject to forfeiture, and you can't lose your permit.”
The Minnesota Office of the Revisor of Statutes states that the holder of a concealed carry permit is required to carry his permit card and a government-issued photo ID when carrying a firearm and must present those documents to law enforcement upon request. The Minnesota law says that a violation of this statute is “a petty misdemeanor” and that the fine is just $25. The law adds that the citation for violating the statute must be dismissed if the person later shows they were authorized to be carrying the pistol.
Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O'Hara said on Face the Nation on CBS on Sunday that “it appears that he was present, exercising his First Amendment rights to record law enforcement activity, and also exercising his Second Amendment rights to lawfully be armed in a public space in the city.”
“You have a Second Amendment right in the United States to possess a firearm, and there are some restrictions around that in Minnesota,” O’Hara added. “And everything that we see, that we are aware of, shows that he did not violate any of those restrictions. He is not a convicted felon, and he is someone that did have a permit for the handgun to carry it.”
When asked about Pretti allegedly having been carrying multiple magazines, O’Hara replied, “I don't think there is any relevance if someone is lawfully exercising their Second Amendment right to carry. The only question would be if they were using the weapon in a — for an unlawful purpose.”
Treasury Secretary suggests peaceful protestors carry billboards — not guns
Bessent joined This Week on ABC on Sunday where he also said that “I am sorry this gentleman is dead, but he did bring a nine millimeter semi-automatic weapon with two cartridges to what was supposed to be a peaceful protest.”
When it was noted by journalist Jonathan Karl that there is no evidence that Pretti had brandished his handgun, Bessent exclaimed, “But he brought a gun! He brought a gun.” Karl referenced the Second Amendment, and Bessent repeatedly asked Karl if he had ever been to a protest, with Karl saying he had only gone as a journalist, not as a protester.
“I’ve been to a protest,” Bessent said. “Guess what? I didn’t bring a gun, I brought a billboard.”
Border Patrol leader Greg Bovino said on Sunday on CNN that “we respect that Second Amendment right, but those rights don’t count when you riot and assault, delay, obstruct, and impede law enforcement officers, and most especially when you mean to do that beforehand.”
Rep. Jeff Van Drew, R-N.J., told Fox News over the weekend that viewers should “not let the left kid you with this, that this is just a normal protest where people are peacefully protesting. No it’s not.” The congressman argued that “peaceful protesters don’t have 9-millimeter weapons with two extra magazines.”
FBI Director clarifies his Second Amendment claims
Patel seemed to echo this general sentiment on Fox News on Sunday, before clarifying it the next day.
"You cannot bring a firearm, loaded, with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want. It's that simple. You don't have a right to break the law,” Patel told Maria Bartiromo. The bureau chief added: “No one who wants to be peaceful shows up at a protest with a firearm that is loaded with two full magazines.”
The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus responded to Patel by arguing that “this is completely incorrect on Minnesota law” and that “there is no prohibition on a permit holder carrying a firearm, loaded, with multiple magazines at a protest or rally in Minnesota.”
Patel seemed to reframe his argument on Monday when he joined conservative influencer Benny Johnson’s podcast.
“We’ve always said we’re going to defend, absolutely, your right to peacefully protest under the First Amendment, and we’re also always going to uphold your right to bear arms under the Second Amendment. That’s never changed — we’re going to equally protect all of those,” Patel said. “The only thing we’re not going to do is allow any of those amendments to be violated when you pursue a course of action of violence against law enforcement.”
Federal prosecutor: “High likelihood” you may be shot if you approach cops with a gun
Bill Essayli, the first assistant U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, said on X this weekend that “if you approach law enforcement with a gun, there is a high likelihood they will be legally justified in shooting you. Don’t do it!”
This earned quick pushback from a number of conservative Second Amendment defenders. The National Rifle Association said on X that “this sentiment from the First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California is dangerous and wrong” and that “responsible public voices should be awaiting a full investigation, not making generalizations and demonizing law-abiding citizens.”
The conservative Gun Owners of America (GOA) said on X that “we condemn the untoward comments” made by Essayli. The GOA added: “Federal agents are not ‘highly likely’ to be ‘legally justified’ in ‘shooting’ concealed carry licensees who approach while lawfully carrying a firearm. The Second Amendment protects Americans' right to bear arms while protesting—a right the federal government must not infringe upon.”
Essayli pushed back, saying that “you're adding words to mischaracterize my statement. I never said it's legally justified to shoot law-abiding concealed carriers” and that “my comment addressed agitators approaching law enforcement with a gun and refusing to disarm.” There is at this time no evidence that Pretti refused to surrender his weapon.
The DOJ prosecutor also urged his followers to “ignore the Antifa ‘pro-2A’ accounts working overtime to justify violence against law enforcement” and that “no one is buying it, and we will restore law and order on American streets.”
“Oh I’m Antifa now?” Aidan Johnston, the director of federal affairs for the GOA, said in reply. “I guess [the Justice Department] is back to targeting gun owners as domestic terrorists. You can want illegals & criminals off the streets and not want to see CCW [concealed carry weapon] permit holders get executed for ‘approaching’ law enforcement.”
Democrats suddenly care about the Second Amendment
Rob Romano, the litigation and intelligence coordinator for the Firearms Policy Coalition Action Foundation, put out a flurry of tweets on X detailing the apparent hypocrisy of multiple gun control groups and leaders.
Newsom responded to the commentary from Bessent by tweeting that “the Trump administration does not believe in the 2nd Amendment. Good to know.”
The California governor has long sought to restrict gun rights — including the specific right to carry a concealed weapon at events such as public demonstrations and protests.
At a 2023 press conference pushing for restrictions on carrying guns in public in California, Newsom used scare quotes to refer to the Second Amendment as a “right” that “they [Second Amendment supporters] assert.”
Newsom supported a California Senate bill which claimed that “widespread carrying of firearms also impedes the exercise of other fundamental rights” and that “when firearms are present in public spaces, it makes those places less safe, which discourages people from attending protests, going to school, peacefully worshiping, voting in person, and enjoying other activities.”
Gabby Gifords sought to criminalize concealed carry at protests now defends Pretti carrying a weapon
Gun control groups which had specifically fought against the right to bear arms during protests also weighed in to defend Pretti’s actions.
Gabby Giffords, a former Democratic Congresswoman and well-known anti-gun advocate, said on X that Pretti “was a lawful gun owner who was protesting in his community when the agents detained, attacked, and then fatally shot him” and that “he had the right to be there and should still be alive.” Giffords was severely wounded in a January 2011 shooting in Tucson, Arizona. Six people were killed in that assault.
Despite her current statement, her website for the Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence currently argues that “the presence of guns at protests and demonstrations not only chills the exercise of our fundamental freedoms, such as freedom of speech and assembly, it also makes people more likely to be shot” and that “in large gatherings of people, especially when emotions and tensions flare, the risk of violence increases when people are armed.”
Her gun control group had tweeted in 2017 that “a peaceful protest does NOT warrant the presence of semi-automatic weapons.” The Giffords group also tweeted in 2020 that “guns have no place in public spaces—especially a protest” and repeatedly criticized “armed protests” that year.
Kris Brown, the president of Brady United Against Gun Violence, said on X that “Alex Pretti was a law-abiding gun owner with a concealed carry permit. Where is the outrage from gun rights groups? You know, the ones who demand an unlimited right to bear arms against a tyrannical government? The silence is deafening.”
Putting aside the fact that multiple gun rights groups did quickly weigh in, the Brady campaign has repeatedly sought to make it illegal to carry firearms into a protest.
“You have argued for banning and arresting armed individuals at protests. You have argued for banning public carry,” the conservative National Association for Gun Rights tweeted in response. “You have argued for capacity limits and feature bans on the very firearm he possessed. You have argued that the weapon itself is a ‘weapon of war’ meant only for bloodshed and violence against law enforcement. You do not get to pretend otherwise now.”
The Brady Center and Giffords Law Center filed an amicus brief in 2024 with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit where they warned about the dangers of it being legal to be armed at protests.
“In practice, the promise of First Amendment rights affords little assurance against hostile listeners bearing guns [...] The problem is exacerbated in an increasingly polarized society,” the gun control groups said. “When carried in public, they magnify the risk of violence where calm, peace, and order are necessary for an atmosphere conducive to a reasonable exchange of viewpoints. To preserve our democracy through peaceful civil engagement, states must be able to appropriately regulate firearms in modern First Amendment-protected spaces.”
The gun control group, Everytown for Gun Safety — famously bankrolled to the tune of $50 million by media billionaire and former NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg — also said on Bluesky over the weekend that “federal agents in Minnesota have now shot and killed Alex Jeffrey Pretti, an ICU nurse with no criminal record and a person who had a legal firearm permit [...] Alex should be here. He didn’t deserve to die in the street.”
Despite now rationalizing that Pretti had a carry permit, just last week, Everytown had touted a “Victory for Gun Safety in the Courts” because Maryland legislators had “enacted legislation that strengthens the standards and requirements for obtaining a concealed-carry permit.” The group was thrilled that Maryland “established a list of locations where guns cannot be carried. That list included public demonstrations.
The group in 2021 had also shared a statement from its grassroots wing Moms Demand Action which argued that “The Dangers of Guns at Protests Are Too Big to Ignore: Armed demonstrations threaten public safety — and freedom of speech.”
Change of heart: Leftists now defend Second Amendment
Ex-Congressman Dean Phillips, D-Minn., tweeted that “for years I quietly mocked 2A defenders who argued arms were necessary to defend American rights against a tyrannical government” but that “today I apologize, because I’ve seen it with my own eyes.”
“Quietly?” GOA's Johnston tweeted in response. “You voted against the Second Amendment every chance you got…” Johnston shared the “F” rating that Gun Owners of America had given Phillips.
Mehdi Hassan, a former MSNBC host, said on X that “I never thought Donald Trump and Stephen Miller would be the ones to finally force me into being a defender of the 2nd Amendment.”
Hassan has long sought to undermine gun rights, tweeting in 2022 that “conservatives have used and abused the 2nd Amendment” and arguing in 2024 that “Republicans have fetishized the 2nd Amendment and bowed the knee to the NRA.”
Minnesota A.G. and others backed restrictions on gun rights in "sensitive places"
The attorneys general for a number of states — including Minnesota — had also argued in 2024 in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that they agreed with California restricting gun rights in “sensitive places” like public demonstrations.
The other attorneys general who signed onto the brief were from Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, the Northern Mariana Islands and Washington, D.C.
Those states spoke favorably about limiting firearms at “sensitive places, events involving political speech, like political rallies and protests” and about “restricting firearms at protests or demonstrations.” The attorneys general claimed that “not only are these locations often targets of violence, but the mere presence of firearms (and the implicit threat they communicate) could chill individuals’ peaceful exercise of their speech rights.”
Jerry Dunleavy
Source: https://justthenews.com/government/courts-law/republicans-and-democrats-switch-jerseys-guns-protests-after-minneapolis
No comments:
Post a Comment