The Second Amendment Role Reversal

National Review Online

Tuesday, January 27, 2026

 

So strong has been the pull of reflexive partisanship in the wake of the killing of Alex Pretti in Minneapolis on Saturday that the Republicans and the Democrats seem briefly to have swapped sides on the desirability and the scope of the Second Amendment.

 

Commenting on the incident, the FBI director, Kash Patel, proposed that “you cannot bring a firearm loaded with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want”; the treasury secretary, Scott Bessent, complained that Pretti had brought “a 9mm semiautomatic weapon with two cartridges to what was supposed to be a peaceful protest”; and Bill Essayli, the first assistant United States attorney for the Central District of California, suggested that “if you approach law enforcement with a gun, there is a high likelihood they will be legally justified in shooting you.” These, clearly, are not sentiments that are usually associated with the Republican Party.

 

At the same time, many anti-gun stalwarts were falling all over themselves to advance arguments that, in any other circumstance, would remain alien. Gavin Newsom, the governor of California, submitted waspishly that “the Trump administration does not believe in the 2nd Amendment. Good to know.” Anti-gun rights groups joined the fray. The Giffords campaign argued that Pretti was “a lawful gun owner who was protesting in his community” and “had the right to be there,” and the Brady campaign asserted that he was “a law-abiding gun owner with a concealed carry permit.” At what point, one must ask, did they all turn into Wayne LaPierre?

 

Naturally, none of these statements ought to be taken seriously. On the Republican side, Patel, Bessent, and Essayli are simply wrong. In Minnesota, one can absolutely bring a semiautomatic firearm “loaded with multiple magazines” to a protest, and it is not the case that if one approaches law enforcement while carrying that firearm, “there is a high likelihood they will be legally justified in shooting you.” There are, of course, a whole host of rules against brandishing firearms, menacing the innocent with firearms, committing felonies with firearms, and so on, but merely attending a protest while in possession of a gun does not rise to that level. By all accounts, Pretti did commit one infraction — leaving his carry permit at home — but, under Minnesota law, that is a misdemeanor that is typically dismissed if one later provides proof to a court.

 

On the Democratic side . . . well, one has to laugh. At present, Gavin Newsom is literally attempting to repeal the Second Amendment, and, in 2023, he signed a bill in California that barred guns from being carried in “sensitive places,” including at protests. (Minnesota has considered a similar law, and, in 2024, the state filed an amicus brief arguing that there is no Second Amendment right to carry guns at “events involving political speech, like political rallies and protests,” because they are “often targets of violence.”) The Giffords campaign wishes to ban the type of firearm that Pretti was carrying on the grounds that it represents “a threat to society” and is “designed to kill large numbers of people quickly,” and it holds the official view that “guns at protests” are not protected by the Constitution because carrying them “chills the exercise of our fundamental freedoms.” The Brady campaign agrees with this, proposing that Americans “do not need a loaded gun to peacefully protest” and should not be allowed to carry one.

 

In addition to this hypocrisy, the Pretti case has unleashed a good deal of woolly thinking about the Second Amendment and its implications. Dean Phillips, who ran against Joe Biden in the 2024 Democratic presidential primary, echoed a popular sentiment among progressives over the weekend when he atoned for having “quietly mocked 2A defenders who argued arms were necessary to defend American rights against a tyrannical government.” “Today,” Phillips concluded, “I apologize, because I’ve seen it with my own eyes.”

 

One must wonder what this can possibly mean in practice. Ignoring for a moment the absurdity of describing immigration enforcement as “tyrannical,” the logical endpoint of this thought is horrifying. It is true that the Second Amendment exists, in part, to help prevent tyranny. But that is a binary, not an à la carte, proposition. One can no more have a little revolution than one can be a little pregnant: To begin the process of throwing off a government is, one way or another, to finish it. If, as one must assume, Dean Phillips would not wish to see that project begun, then he and his fellow travelers ought to be more careful with their words.

 

The same applies to those, on the right and the left, who have confused can with ought. As any American who has received firearms training will tell you, the first rule of carrying a gun is that it is there to save your life if needed — and for no other purpose besides. In every concealed carry class, “de-escalation” is the word of the day. Trainees are advised to stay away from danger, avoid arguments, and route around crowds and mobs. The gun is there to be used if all else has failed; it is not a shield to be waved around proactively. Legally, Alex Pretti was within his rights to have his gun on his person, and judging by the footage of his death, it seems unlikely that he had committed any crimes beyond forgetting or discarding his permit. As a prudential matter, however, he broke the primary rule: To arm oneself before knowingly entering a highly charged political situation in which one expects to interact antagonistically with law enforcement is foolish, even if it is permissible under the law.

 

Our politics works best when those involved think before they speak and say only what they believe. Once again, in response to bad news out of Minnesota, our current crop of carnival barkers has chosen the opposite course. We are all worse off for their efforts.