MA GUN LAWYER

The shooting of Alex Pretti in Minneapolis last week has sparked a fierce national debate — but too often the focus has drifted away from the real issue: Whether Americans who lawfully exercise their constitutional rights should be vilified for doing so. It has been a truly remarkable sight to see the American media in the wake of the shooting- the hosts of The View, included- all of a sudden stating that the answer to this is a resounding NO. Here they are, in a complete 180 degree turn, espousing the view (no pun intended) that yes, the 2nd Amendment is an actual Constitutional right. This is the same American media who virtually makes vilifying peaceful gun owners an avocation.

Pretti, a licensed concealed-carry holder under Minnesota law, was shot and killed by federal agents during protests and riots in that city. Yet in the immediate aftermath, top officials in the Trump administration — including President Donald Trump, FBI Director Kash Patel, and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem — publicly questioned his right to carry a firearm at a demonstration and suggested he should not have brought his handgun there.

Patel went so far as to tell Fox News that you simply cannot “bring a firearm, loaded, with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want.” Secretary Noem, in her own remarks, implied that a protester who shows up with a firearm and ammunition isn’t someone who should be taken at their word. Even the President himself echoed this sentiment, saying Pretti “shouldn’t have been carrying a gun” — a remark that has alienated even traditional allies such as the National Rifle Association.

Let that sink in: at a time when supposedly pro-gun-rights voices should be standing firm against any suggestion that carrying a firearm can be a wrongful act in and of itself, senior leaders are instead echoing the very impulse to penalize the lawful carrying of arms.

Lawful Carry is Lawful — Even at Protests

It is important to be clear: no reasonable person is suggesting that someone who engages in violent conduct or resists arrest should be immune from legal consequences. If a gun owner reaches for or brandishes a weapon with the intent to threaten or assault an officer, the law already provides ample authorities for intervention, arrest, and prosecution — and rightly so.

But to state categorically that someone shouldn’t have been armed simply because they were at a protest, without more, strikes at the very core of the Second Amendment. Carrying a handgun is not a right to be blithely surrendered at the sight of a crowd; it is a constitutional right protected regardless of location, short of any narrowly-defined restrictions that are themselves constitutionally acceptable. As we all know here in Massachusetts, not all are, by the way. Not by a longshot.

Additionally, federal and state law in many jurisdictions — including Minnesota — explicitly permits licensed concealed carry even at public demonstrations. That reality makes the administration’s comments not just tone-deaf, but legally misplaced.

A Lawyer’s Perspective: Rights Don’t Get Suspended Because You Protest

I’ve seen how these issues play out on a much smaller scale right here in Eastern Massachusetts — but the principle is the same.

In a recent case, my client’s License to Carry in this Commonwealth was summarily suspended because she had attended a peaceful protest against a state agency. The licensing authority initially justified the suspension by alleging that the disorderly conduct charges she faced justified the suspension. But at the hearing, the authority’s own lawyers abandoned that claim and instead argued — unambiguously — that the mere fact she was participating in an outdoor public protest rendered her “unsuitable” to carry firearms. This was perhaps because video captured of the small protest showed that she had committed no offense, which is why her charges were ultimately dismissed.

I argued, vehemently, that one cannot be stripped of Second Amendment rights for engaging in First Amendment-protected expressive conduct. To their credit, the judge agreed and held in my client’s favor. But my sense — and this is a fear shared by many — is that most judges might not have. That is precisely why we must be on guard when government officials begin to conflate lawful carrying with inherent danger or impropriety.

Why This Matters

If you can be told you shouldn’t have been armed simply because you exercised free speech rights at the time, then the next step is far too easy: you shouldn’t be armed because you disagree with prevailing political winds. Today it’s a protest in Minneapolis; tomorrow it could be any lawful demonstration, rally, or public event.

We must remember that the right to keep and bear arms does not come with a civic loyalty test. Nor does the First Amendment predicate your right to arm yourself on whether someone in power approves of your message or your presence.

What happened in Minneapolis — and the commentary that followed — deserves scrutiny not only because of the tragic loss of life, but because of what the rhetoric reveals about how some in power view our rights. When “defenders” of the Constitution start arguing that a lawfully armed citizen somehow shouldn’t have been armed at a protest they legally attended, the implications are profoundly chilling.

The protections of the Second Amendment, like those of the First, do not depend on the political sentiments of prosecutors or bureaucrats, or even presidents. To suggest otherwise is to undermine the very freedoms this nation was founded to protect.