Guns For Me and Not for Thee

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside... Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived of the use of them...." - Thomas Paine

On January 24 2026, 37-year-old intensive care nurse Alex Pretti was shot dead by federal immigration agents in Minneapolis. As with Rene Good, the Trump administration went on full attack, quick to denigrate the victim and label the death as justified. This response surprised few and perceptions of the shooting fell cleanly along partisan lines.

Pretti, a gun owner with a permit to conceal carry, brought his handgun to the protests against ICE activities in his community. Department of Homeland Security Kristi Noem claimed he brandished his gun at officers and wanted to “inflict maximum damage on individuals and kill law enforcement”. The claim was completely unfounded by video footage, and she has since walked these statements back, saying that she was using the “best information we had at the time”.

Alex Pretti being peppersprayed moments before being shot. Video showed officers removing Pretti's gun before executing him as well.

After efforts to label the victim a “domestic terrorist” fell on deaf ears, officials shocked many Second Amendment advocates with their Hail Mary tactic to vilify the lawful carrying of firearms. During a news conference hours after the shooting, Noem said that “I don’t know of any peaceful protester that shows up with a gun and ammunition rather than a sign”. FBI Director Kash Patel mirrored these sentiments on Fox News, saying, “As Kristi said, you cannot bring a firearm loaded with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want. It’s that simple.”

U.S. attorney for the Central District of California Bill Essayli shared his opinion on social media, writing “If you approach law enforcement with a gun, there is a high likelihood they will be legally justified in shooting you. Don’t do it!” Donald Trump himself spoke on the issue, saying “you can’t have guns. You can’t walk in with guns.”

Gun rights groups, including the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, were quick to inform the administration that they were “completely incorrect.” The NRA replied to Essayli’s statement, noting that it is “dangerous and wrong”, and that “responsible public voices should be awaiting a full investigation, not making generalizations and demonizing law-abiding citizens.”

The framing of Pretti carrying a firearm at a protest hit particularly close to home for prominent GOP advocate and Second Amendment defender Kyle Rittenhouse. During the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests, Rittenhouse shot three men, killing two, and was later acquitted of all charges. A day after Pretti’s death, he posted on X, “Carry everywhere. It is your right. #ShallNotBeInfringed”.

Aside from a few tepid responses from Republican members in Congress, their collective silence on the Second Amendment as a right belonging to all Americans, regardless of political standing, speaks volumes.

Over the last few decades, the Republican Party has been a stalwart defender of an individual’s unalienable right to own guns. However, these tides are appearing to shift in the wake of an increased interest by leftists and liberals to practice their Second Amendment right.

The Trump administration’s efforts to ban transgender Americans from owning guns directly fly in the face of the very principle they claim to defend. The party of “the only way to stop a bad guy with a gun is with a good guy with a gun” appears to not be operating in a way in which guns make the world a safer place. Arguably, the only safe world in their eyes is one in which they hold all the weapons, and their opposition does not.

The Black Panthers and the Mulford Act

The Republican party’s selective application of the Second Amendment is not without historical precedent. The Civil Rights era was plagued with polarization fueled by police brutality.

Many found inspiration in the message of Martin Luther King, Jr., who believed the fight for racial equality would be gained through nonviolence and civil disobedience. Others were not won over by this approach, including Huey Newton and Bobby Seale, who formed the Black Panther party in 1966 in Oakland California. Their ideology was based on the teachings of the late Malcolm X, who largely rejected King’s message of peaceful defiance.

Newton and Seale were disappointed by the civil rights movement’s inability to improve the condition of black lives. In the face of rampant state sanctioned violence, they lost faith in the idea that nonviolent protests would truly liberate black Americans.

In April of 1967, Denzil Dowell, a 22-year-old black California resident, was shot and killed by the Contra Costa County Sheriff’s Department. He was unarmed and shot six to ten times while fleeing the scene of a robbery. This event was just one of many instances of police violence that sparked outrage within the black community.

Shortly after Dowell’s death, 30 Black Panther Party members practiced both their First and Second Amendment rights on the steps of the California statehouse. Armed with .357 Magnums, 12-gauge shotguns, and .45-caliber pistols, members declared, “The time has come for Black people to arm themselves”.

A Black Panther Party member brings a shotgun into the California state Capitol, May 2, 1967. He was one of two dozen armed Panthers who entered the building. *(Photo: Walt Zeboski/Associated Press)*

This caught the attention of Republican California assemblymen Don Mulford. He introduced a bill that would repeal the law that permitted citizens to carry loaded weapons in public spaces. The Mulford Act shortly followed, which was signed into California law by then Governor Ronald Reagan, prohibiting the carrying of loaded firearms in public without a permit. Not dissimilar from the statements given by Kash Patel and Donald Trump, Reagan commented that he saw “no reason why on the street today a citizen should be carrying loaded weapons.”

Contrary to the NRA’s current opposition to gun restriction, they supported the government’s efforts to control gun access in the 1960s, particularly for ex-convicts and mental patients. They viewed gun ownership as a right for “law-abiding, trained, and responsible citizens”. However, their support of the Mulford Act directly contradicted this credo.

The Black Panther Party engaged in the legal, responsible open carrying of firearms in public. They believed that every citizen should utilize their Second Amendment rights to protect themselves from the corrupt government that was brutalizing their communities.

Finding themselves in the uncomfortable position of operating as the oppressive government, Republican leaders saw them as a threat and acted. This move should come as no surprise, nor should the behavior of the current administration. In both instances, the key principle they hold is that of self-preservation. They are behaving as rational actors to defend themselves; not from a tyrannical government, but from those they oppress.

A Right for All, or for None

The right to bear arms is being invoked selectively by the current administration in an effort to preserve power. The Second Amendment was never meant to function as a privilege granted to the politically favored. If arms are to deter tyranny, they must be equally available, or equally restrained. When the right is affirmed for some and denied to others, it ceases to defend liberty. In that world, the Second Amendment is no longer a shield against oppression, but an instrument of it.

Guns For Me and Not for Thee

The Black Panthers and the Mulford Act

A Right for All, or for None

Sources