On January 24, 2026, Alex Pretti became a casualty in a war most Americans didn't know was being fought — the war between constitutional rights and federal power. Pretti, a 37-year-old nurse from Minneapolis, was shot ten times in the back by federal immigration agents while exercising two fundamental constitutional rights simultaneously: the right to bear arms and the right to peaceable assembly.
What happened next was equally unprecedented. Instead of acknowledging a potential constitutional violation, a Trump-appointed U.S. Attorney argued that Pretti's legal possession of a firearm created justification for lethal force. FBI Director Kash Patel claimed on Fox News that Americans "cannot bring a firearm loaded with multiple magazines to any sort of protest" — a statement that is factually incorrect under existing law.
Key Facts About the Alex Pretti Case
- Pretti had a valid Minnesota concealed carry permit
- His firearm remained holstered throughout the encounter
- Multiple witnesses confirm he was not brandishing or threatening anyone
- He was shot in the back while being tackled by federal agents
- Video footage contradicts official government explanations
- No charges were filed against Pretti before his death
The Government's Dangerous Argument
The federal response to the Pretti shooting represents a fundamental shift in how the government views Second Amendment rights. For the first time in modern history, federal officials have argued that the mere lawful possession of a firearm — not brandishing, not threatening, not even displaying — can justify the use of lethal force by law enforcement.
This argument turns the Second Amendment on its head. If exercising a constitutional right creates grounds for execution, then that right effectively doesn't exist. The implications extend far beyond gun owners attending protests:
- Concealed carry permit holders could face deadly force during any police encounter
- Open carry in states where it's legal becomes potentially fatal
- The combination of First and Second Amendment activities becomes impossible
- Government agents gain broad immunity for shooting legal gun owners
An Unprecedented Political Fracture
What makes the Pretti case historically significant isn't just the shooting itself — it's the political earthquake that followed. For the first time in decades, major gun rights organizations publicly broke with a Republican administration over Second Amendment issues.
The NRA — historically one of Trump's most reliable allies and major donors — called the administration's position "dangerous and wrong." Gun Owners of America was even more direct, stating that "The Second Amendment protects Americans' right to bear arms while protesting — a right the federal government must not infringe upon."
Republican Congressman Thomas Massie summarized the constitutional stakes: "Carrying a firearm is not a death sentence, it's a Constitutionally protected God-given right, and if you don't understand this you have no business in law enforcement or government."
Why This Break Matters
These organizations didn't break with Trump lightly. The NRA has backed Republican presidents through numerous controversies, often staying silent when convenient. Their willingness to publicly rebuke a sitting Republican president signals that something fundamental has changed in American gun rights politics.
This fracture reveals a truth that gun rights advocates have long known but rarely voiced: the Republican Party's commitment to the Second Amendment has always been conditional. When push comes to shove, party loyalty often trumps constitutional principle.
The Legal Precedent
Beyond the immediate tragedy, the Pretti case threatens to establish a legal precedent that would fundamentally weaken Second Amendment protections. If federal courts accept the government's argument that lawful gun possession can justify lethal force, future cases will cite this precedent to expand government power at the expense of individual rights.
Constitutional Law Implications
Legal scholars across the political spectrum have noted that the government's position in the Pretti case contradicts decades of Second Amendment jurisprudence. The Supreme Court's decisions in Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010) explicitly protected the right to bear arms for lawful purposes, including self-defense. Bruen (2022) extended those protections to public carry.
If the government's position stands, it would create a massive loophole in constitutional protections: any government agent could justify shooting a legal gun owner simply by claiming they felt threatened by the presence of a lawfully carried firearm.
What This Means for Gun Owners
The Pretti case forces every gun owner to confront an uncomfortable reality: your Second Amendment rights are only as strong as your political usefulness to those in power. When gun owners were seen as a reliable Republican voting bloc, their rights were (relatively) protected. But when those same gun owners exercise their rights in ways that challenge government power — like protesting federal immigration raids — suddenly those rights become negotiable.
This is why purely partisan gun rights organizations are insufficient to protect constitutional freedoms. The NRA spent decades telling Americans they needed guns to resist government tyranny, then went largely silent when government agents started using lethal force against legal gun owners. Only when the killing became politically inconvenient did they speak up.
The Bigger Picture
The Pretti case represents more than just bad policing or prosecutorial overreach. It's a test case for whether constitutional rights can survive in an era of extreme political polarization. If the Second Amendment can be suspended based on the political affiliation of those exercising it, then no constitutional right is truly safe.
Consider the broader pattern:
- First Amendment: Protesters face federal force depending on their cause
- Fourth Amendment: Surveillance and searches vary based on political targeting
- Fifth Amendment: Due process protections erode for political opponents
- Second Amendment: Gun rights now depend on political usefulness
The Path Forward
The Alex Pretti case is a turning point, but it doesn't have to be a breaking point. The fracture in traditional gun rights politics creates an opportunity to build something better — a constitutional rights movement that transcends party politics and protects all Americans equally.
This is why The Common Defense Project exists. We believe constitutional rights belong to all Americans, not just those who vote the right way or support the right politicians. We hold government accountable regardless of party affiliation, and we judge people by their commitment to constitutional principles, not their voter registration.
Alex Pretti died exercising two constitutional rights that millions of Americans take for granted. His death must not be in vain. We must ensure that no American ever again faces lethal government force simply for lawfully exercising their constitutional rights.
The Second Amendment belongs to everyone. It's time we had an organization that acts like it.