Attempt to smear Alex Pretti incenses gun rights supporters
The Department of Homeland Security says Alex Pretti brought this gun to the scene in Minneapolis when he was fatally shot during a confrontation with federal agents. Credit: DHS via TNS
By Cathy YoungThe shooting of intensive care nurse Alex Pretti by Border Patrol agents in Minneapolis, during a scuffle that erupted when immigration officers got rough with peaceful protesters, is widely seen as a likely turning point in popular opposition to President Donald Trump.
The first polls show that Americans overwhelmingly view the killing as unjustified. A number of Republican politicians have urged curbing the aggressive enforcement tactics in Minneapolis, and Trump himself seems to be signaling a shift. Partly, this reaction is due to the shocking nature of the incident: Pretti was repeatedly shot in the back, and the legal handgun he had carried in his waistband had been removed by one of the agents before the first shot was fired. But the powerful backlash is also partly due to another factor: the administration’s attempt to smear Pretti as a terrorist because he was carrying a gun antagonized gun rights supporters, a major part of the conservative base.
Several prominent administration officials, including Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and FBI Director Kash Patel, have argued that Pretti was a wrongdoer because he brought a loaded gun, with extra clips, to a protest. Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli in Southern California even wrote in a social media post that "if you approach law enforcement with a gun, there is a high likelihood they will be legally justified in shooting you."
These comments incensed Second Amendment advocates. The conservative National Rifle Association denounced Essayli’s claim as "dangerous and wrong." Another group, Gun Owners for America, noted that "the Second Amendment protects Americans' right to bear arms while protesting." Some Republican politicians such as Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) chimed in with similar statements.
Essayli explained that he was referring to aggressive "agitators," not "law-abiding concealed carriers." But one person’s agitator is another’s peaceful protester. Pretti did nothing more than take photos of the agents — and assist a woman who had been pushed down by one of them. He never drew his gun.
Administration officials or conservative commentators who decry the recklessness of bringing a gun to a protest are in a particularly awkward situation since, only four or five years ago, much of the right defended armed protesters against COVID-19 lockdowns — and Kyle Rittenhouse, the teenager who shot three people during a Black Lives Matter-related riot in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Rittenhouse, who said he was trying to stop a mob from burning down a car dealership, was acquitted on the grounds of self-defense.
One could say that it was unwise for Rittenhouse or Pretti to bring a firearm into a volatile situation. One could say that the weapons displayed at many anti-lockdown protests were deliberately intimidating. To most Europeans, the idea of armed protesters is downright baffling. But individual sovereignty which includes the right to bear arms is a long American tradition — one that, ironically, is now being defended in the same left-of-center political quarters where one usually finds advocacy for gun control.
The idea of armed citizens as a check on government tyranny, generally popular among conservatives, is fraught with difficult questions: Where do you draw the line between legitimate resistance to tyranny and unlawful insurrection? Nevertheless, the rush by so many on the right to stigmatize Pretti for carrying a gun became a stark demonstration of hypocritical partisanship — and, in part, the fallout from it forced the administration to backtrack. In that sense, gun owners have in fact scored a victory over tyranny.
Opinions expressed by Cathy Young, a writer for The Bulwark, are her own.
Cathy Young is a writer for The Bulwark.
