>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
Multiple videos captured by bystanders paint a troubling picture. Footage shows Pretti holding a cell phone, apparently recording the operation, not brandishing a weapon. His firearm remained holstered throughout the encounter and was only removed after agents tackled him during a physical struggle.
At some point amid the chaos, a possible accidental discharge occurred, and Pretti was shot multiple times. He did not survive.
Federal officials contradict video evidence
Despite the visual evidence, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem quickly claimed that Pretti was “brandishing” a firearm and intended to “massacre law enforcement.” That assertion immediately drew skepticism, especially as additional video angles surfaced showing no such threat.
Not a single released clip shows Pretti drawing or pointing a gun. Instead, they consistently show him filming agents with his phone as they conducted the operation.
That contradiction has become central to the controversy.
The situation escalated further when Los Angeles U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli suggested there was a “high likelihood” officers were “legally justified” in shooting someone who approaches them while armed—even if that firearm is carried legally.
Gun rights groups draw a hard line
Gun rights organizations wasted no time rejecting that position.
Gun Owners of America condemned the statement outright, declaring that the Second Amendment “protects Americans’ right to bear arms while protesting.”
The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus echoed that concern, demanding a “full and transparent investigation” and warning that constitutional carry rights do not evaporate simply because someone exercises their First Amendment freedoms.
Even the National Rifle Association joined the pushback, calling Essayli’s interpretation “dangerous and wrong.”
Second Amendment expert Rick Hodsdon told FOX 9 that justifying lethal force solely because someone is legally armed is “absurd.”
Meanwhile, FBI Director Kash Patel downplayed the controversy during a Fox News appearance, claiming that “no one who wants to be peaceful shows up at a protest with a firearm that is loaded with two full magazines.”
Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino made similar claims on CNN, arguing that carrying firearms to protests where individuals “perpetrate violence, obstruct, delay or obfuscate Border Patrol” crosses a line.
Yet no evidence has been presented showing Pretti intended violence. All available footage shows him recording law enforcement, not threatening them.
Rob Doar of the Minnesota Gun Owners Law Center cut through the rhetoric with a blunt reminder: “You don’t have to pick between which rights you exercise.”
A dangerous precedent for constitutional rights
Gun rights advocates warn that if federal agents can shoot someone simply for being legally armed at a protest, then the Second Amendment becomes meaningless the moment citizens show up to demonstrate.
That position puts administration officials in an awkward bind.
Many of the same political voices previously defended Kyle Rittenhouse’s right to openly carry an AR-15 at protests in 2020. Now, those same figures are questioning why Alex Pretti had a firearm at all.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent added fuel to the fire when he remarked that when he attends protests, “I didn’t bring a gun. I brought a billboard.”
Data destroys the government’s narrative
Statistics tell a vastly different story than federal talking points.
According to Crime Prevention Research Center data, concealed carry permit holders are among the most law-abiding demographics in the country—convicted of crimes at rates significantly lower than even police officers.
In Illinois, permit holders went four consecutive years without a single conviction involving misuse of a permitted concealed firearm. Florida abandoned its tracking system entirely in 1992 because incidents were so rare they were statistically insignificant.
A 2024 study documented 180 active shooter incidents stopped by concealed carry permit holders. Accidental bystander injuries occurred in just 0.56% of those cases—half the rate observed in comparable police shootings.
Courts and lawmakers push back
Despite the data, DHS has argued in court filings that it is “unlawful” for protesters to carry firearms, even with valid permits. That claim directly conflicts with Minnesota law, which explicitly allows permit holders to openly carry firearms in public, including during protests.
The Supreme Court reinforced those protections in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, affirming that the Second Amendment protects the right to carry firearms in public.
Federal agencies cannot erase constitutional rights by unilaterally declaring protests to be “sensitive places.”
Representative Thomas Massie summed up the stakes bluntly, stating that “carrying a firearm is not a death sentence” and calling it “a Constitutionally protected God-given right.”
Meanwhile, House Homeland Security Committee Chairman Andrew Garbarino has requested testimony from ICE and Border Patrol leadership as pressure mounts.
The fallout from Alex Pretti’s death is far from over—and the battle lines over constitutional rights have now been clearly drawn.
