Gun rights groups, who often side with the Trump administration on most matters, are rebelling at the notion that carrying a firearm is threatening, illegal or an invitation to police violence.<\/b>
\nAfter U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents fatally shot Minneapolis protester Alex Pretti on Saturday, federal officials described him as a \u201cdomestic terrorist\u201d and \u201cwould-be assassin\u201d who \u201cwanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.\u201d 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 threaten 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 \u2014 the latest example of disagreements between Second Amendment advocates and an administration that claims to support their cause.
Pretti \u201capproached U.S. Border Patrol officers with a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun,\u201d the Department of Homeland Security said Saturday, neglecting to mention that the agents did not see the holstered gun until after they tackled Pretti.
\u201cThe officers attempted to disarm [him] but the armed suspect violently resisted,\u201d 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\u2019s possession of a handgun was illegal. \u201cYou cannot bring a firearm, loaded, with multiple magazines, to any sort of protest that you want,\u201d Patel said. \u201cIt\u2019s that simple. You don\u2019t have a right to break the law.\u201d
Bill Essayli, first assistant U.S. attorney for the Central District of California, went even further. \u201cIf you approach law enforcement with a gun, there is a high likelihood they will be legally justified in shooting you,\u201d he averred. \u201cDon\u2019t do it!\u201d
That was too much for Gun Owners of America, which condemned Essayli\u2019s \u201cuntoward comments,\u201d noting that \u201cthe Second Amendment protects Americans\u2019 right to bear arms while protesting \u2014 a right the federal government must not infringe upon.\u201d
The National Rifle Association also was perturbed, calling the prosecutor\u2019s statement \u201cdangerous and wrong.\u201d
President Donald Trump did not explicitly say that Pretti invited his own death by carrying a gun, but he did portray that conduct as troubling.
\u201cI don\u2019t like any shooting,\u201d he told The Wall Street Journal. \u201cBut I don\u2019t like it when somebody goes into a protest and he\u2019s got a very powerful, fully loaded gun with two magazines.\u201d
According to Pretti\u2019s ex-wife, the Journal notes, he \u201chad carried a gun for several years,\u201d exercising a right recognized by the U.S. Supreme Court, the state of Minnesota and local licensing authorities, which had issued him a carry permit. In this context, there was nothing necessarily nefarious about his decision to carry a gun the day he was killed.
As the Gun Owners of America\u2019s comments reflect, conservatives traditionally have prized the more specific right to carry guns at political protests, such as demonstrations against the restrictions imposed during the COVID-19 pandemic. Left-leaning gun control advocates, meanwhile, have condemned that practice and supported bans on it.
Given this history, it is not surprising that gun rights groups usually allied with Trump rebelled at the notion that carrying a firearm is threatening, illegal or an invitation to police violence. Nor is it surprising that they were alarmed when Justice Department officials considered a ban on gun possession by transgender people.
While that half-baked proposal seems to have gone nowhere, the Trump administration is actively defending the federal ban on gun possession by people convicted of nonviolent felonies. The NRA and other Second Amendment groups, by contrast, say that policy is blatantly unconstitutional.
The Trump administration is also defending a federal law that treats cannabis consumers as felons if they own guns, even if they live in states that have legalized marijuana. The NRA has called that policy \u201cunjust.\u201d
Trump is avowedly committed to \u201cprotecting Second Amendment rights,\u201d and his Justice Department recently launched a litigation project for that purpose. But as the government\u2019s defense of the Pretti shooting confirms, those promises are less reliable than they seem.
Jacob Sullum, a senior editor at Reason magazine, is the author of \u201cBeyond Control: Drug Prohibition, Gun Regulation, and the Search for Sensible Alternatives.\u201d<\/p>\n