Federal officials suggested that carrying a firearm is inherently threatening and an invitation to police violence.
After U.S. Border Patrol agents fatally shot Minneapolis protester Alex Pretti on Saturday, federal officials described him as a « domestic terrorist » and « would-be assassin » who « wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement. » But the only evidence to support those characterizations was the fact that Pretti was carrying a concealed handgun, which he was legally allowed to do.
Although videos of the incident show Pretti never drew that weapon, let alone threatened the agents with it, several officials portrayed his exercise of the constitutional right to bear arms as inherently suspicious. That position provoked criticism from leading gun rights groups—the latest example of disagreements between Second Amendment advocates and an administration that claims to support their cause.
Pretti « approached US Border Patrol officers with a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun », the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said on Saturday, neglecting to mention that the agents did not see the holstered gun until after they tackled Pretti. « The officers attempted to disarm [him] but the armed suspect violently resisted », DHS added, omitting the fact that an agent had removed the gun by the time the shooting started.
FBI Director Kash Patel erroneously claimed Pretti’s possession of a handgun was illegal. « You cannot bring a firearm, loaded, with multiple magazines, to any sort of protest that you want », Patel said.
