I understand your criticism of Director Patel's comment, and you're correct. I will say that if you go anywhere armed you have a responsibility to be the adult in the room, not the Rambo. Patel phrased it wrong, he does that a lot. On balance he's done a good job, though, and I support him.
I completely agree. Carrying ANYWHERE requires good judgement. While his right to do se, Pretti’s carrying at a volatile protest/riot was not wise. Also, Minnesota law requires that the gun carrier have a readily available ID while carrying, which Pretti did not have. And finally, getting into a violent struggle with any LEO’s, especially while armed, is a sure recipe to get shot.
The irony here is that now all of a sudden Liberals are all for the Second Amendment.
I have to agree with Lee; I generally have a gun with me most of the time, not always carrying, there's a 9mm stashed in the car too. So, there are instances where if I'm in a prohibited zone, I could be prosecuted. If you don't do anything stupid, you're not likely to win any stupid prizes.
The Marxist-Stalinist gun grabbers have been throwing up Rittenhouse in their defense of Pretti. They don't understand that Kyle didn't go armed to an event where the insurrectionists are literally attacking the police verbally and physically; or that he actually laid hands on officers while "helping someone up."
Pretti didn't have a dog in that hunt and needed to keep out of it.
Actually it's the other way around. Many liberals have guns. Its America. The ironic part is REPUBLICANS are saying its not ok to go out in public with a firearm.
All Veterans Administration properties and parking lots. I generally don't worry about that too much, I'm certainly not foolish enough to bring one inside.
He had the right to go to the protest armed. It's what he did while armed that's the problem. That's what Patel should be addressing. This isn't a Second Amendment issue.
Not a fan of Director Patel. He has a horrible stance on this issue. Let's not reward the government with more power - that's how we got here in the first place.
I understand your anger and share your concerns. Giving more power to the government is often not the answer to problems; it may even lead to repeating past mistakes. What we need now is checks and balances and accountability, not further expansion of power. Do you think that would work?
This illustrates the inconsistency with which citizens often approach rights and freedoms. Following the Minnesota shooting, many on the Left have become vocal advocates for Second Amendment protections. Conversely, some on the Right now argue for a situational right to carry based on how an individual is perceived by government authorities and law enforcement. This represents a dangerous precedent, one that carries significant potential for abuse. The selective application of constitutional rights and freedoms contributes directly to public cynicism toward government institutions. It is worth remembering that the NRA supported the Mulford Act, signed by then-Governor Ronald Reagan, which restricted the firearm rights of California residents. Either we uphold the freedoms protected by the Constitution consistently, or we do not. Situational freedom under the law is not a viable principle.
Those on the Right whom I referenced happen to be those with the greatest influence. I am speaking specifically about comments from administration officials immediately following the killing of Alex Pretti. Your assertion that he put his hands on law enforcement officers and resisted arrest was a premature, subjective claim made by these individuals, one that is unsupported by evidence and will ultimately be determined by investigations. What is objectively true is that he was exercising his Second Amendment right, as a lawful gun owner, to carry his handgun. He was also lawfully exercising his First Amendment right to peaceably assemble. The exercise of these constitutional rights should not place someone at risk of death.
I am uncertain who “the vast majority” you reference are; however, legal actions that you or they deem to be stupid do not constitute a justifiable killing. This is exactly what I meant by “situational rights and perceptions.” As responsible firearm owners and Second Amendment supporters, we should resist any effort by the government, regardless of party, to infringe upon our rights and the values we seek to protect. I understand the passion associated with partisan politics. However, as citizens, the unending pursuit of liberty and preservation of our constitutional freedoms must supersede loyalty to any elected officials, irrespective of political policy.
The fundamental principles of our union are its laws, not hearsay and social media memes.
Pretti very clearly shoves an ICE agent in at least two videos. He then ends up in a tussle with that agent and several others.
Those are not legal actions.
Even if we posit that Pretti’s initial intent was to protect a woman whom the initial ICE agent had shoved, his putting hands on the agent was illegal.
Again, you’ve made a claim based on your subjective view of the facts. Fortunately, your view does not constitute facts or the law. I’ll leave that to the investigations. My purpose is to defend constitutional rights, not to debate video footage. Your last comment was an ad hominem barb directed at me. This type of response is emotional and occurs in lieu of serious conversation. Continuing would be unproductive and not the best investment of my time, so I will bow out of the discussion.
My family & I fully support Director Patel. My wife & I have had CCW permits for over 15 years & yes, I carry every single day @ work & in the house. There is a huge difference between 2nd Amendment rights and stupidly joining what you know is a violent "riot" and brandishing your gun. If you want to destroy your life, go ahead with that & see where that leads to.
You have clearly not watched the videos. He was not “brandishing” his gun. It was holstered until it was removed by the ICE agent. It was only after it was removed and the man was on his knees, that he was shot (3 times) in the back, and then the rest of them finished him off.
Pretti was carrying a Sig 320, which is pretty much an M18. His also had optics AND threaded barrel. So his mags were standard capacity.
Also in one video I watched Pretti reached for the place where his by then empty holster was. To me I think he was reaching for his sidearm, not realizing an agent had reached in the scuffle and snatched the pistol away.
Patel should publicly clarify this statement. Personally, I believe he suffered from "Trumpism" meaning he speaks fragmented thoughts with no pre-thought as to how the press and Americans will take his statement.
Here in this case I will give the benefit of the doubt that he was specifically speaking only regarding the Minnesota killing of a lawful conceal carrying man with two magazines who was obstructing ICE and physically laying hands on ICE and other federal government officers, for the purpose of protecting protestors from federal officer's orders to cease obstruction.
Lawful 2nd Amendment conceal carrying individuals don't obstruct federal agents carrying out lawful missions simply because by doing so they are no longer lawful conceal carrying individuals. They become armed felons assaulting federal officers.
I think this is what he meant but fell far short from verbalizing this.......I hope.
There are 38,000 agents in the FBI alone. I sincerely doubt that any proclaimed purge removed all or even most of the leftist actors. The core culture of the FBI hasn't just turned 180 degrees from the Obama/Biden reign of terror. If it even made a distinct about face there would be a flurry of whistleblowers and insider books on the subject. I can't name a one. Maybe we have to wait until the agents retire and protect their pensions before any exposé's are published. I won't hold my breath. Omertà, you know.
I've read all the comments here (as of 2:30pm central time). I agree with most on both sides. I've had Texas licenses (CHL, then LTC) since 2005. Texas allows a business or nonprofit to have specific signs for no carry or no open carry (TX code 30.06 and 30.07). The law is painfully specific about the signage being certain size, type face, in two languages, and a every normal entrance. Given all that, it is possible for a business to be not 100% in compliance and therefore technically cannot bar me from carrying in their establishment.
If I did carry based on their noncompliance, and some dumbass assistant manager detected my concealed Sig P365 and called the police, I could be arrested. Yes, I would win in the end on that faulty signage issue, but is it worth it? I do have prepaid legal including bail bond and expert witness coverage, so I probably wouldn't be out of pocket any money. However, a lot of time would be expended, it might take me a year to get my Sig back, AND I'm pretty sure I'd have an arrest on my record. Again, I'd be technically in the right but never the same as before I decided to take a chance proving it.
This case seems an obvious example of how you can be right and still dead. I would never put myself in that position, and I suspect hardly anyone here would either. Yeah, we're smart enough to stay home rather than get into a mess between armed federal officers and a mix of paid and insane protesters. We'd be at home talking with the real estate agent about selling our home, while also applying for work in Tennessee, Florida, or Texas.
Finally, I'll give Patel a few goofs, just like I do DJT. In both cases, those current office holders are 1,000% better than those they replaced. BTW, I just declined attendance at a convention in El Paso, because it's being held at a Hilton property with 30.06 and 30.07 signage at the front doors. I explained to the organizers, "I'm not going to drive 900 miles to stay at a hotel on I-10 in a border town, and then leave my personal protection in my car!"
I believe Minnesota's carry law was written by professor Joe Olson and passed in 2005 (initially in 2003 but overturned on a technicality) under the Tim Pawlenty republican administration. The Democrats have been constantly trying to take away our rights since then, resisted by GOCRA intiatialy, and now by MNGOC headed by Bryan Stawser and crew..
Kash Patel is an unqualified bozo, with no relevant experience to justify his appointment. Every time he opens his mouth, he puts his foot in it. His media appearances give every indication of a deer in the headlights.
It's no wonder he doesn't understand the Second Amendment, since his acquaintance with the Constitution appears to be in passing.
I understand your criticism of Director Patel's comment, and you're correct. I will say that if you go anywhere armed you have a responsibility to be the adult in the room, not the Rambo. Patel phrased it wrong, he does that a lot. On balance he's done a good job, though, and I support him.
I do too, but he needs some good advice about his public comments.
The hot takes from the administration's spokesmodels have not helped their mission.
I'd advise them all to take a breath, get the facts, keep it brief and stop talking.
Trump has a tendency to speak without thinking. Remember his "First take the guns" in his defense of Red Flag laws?
I completely agree. Carrying ANYWHERE requires good judgement. While his right to do se, Pretti’s carrying at a volatile protest/riot was not wise. Also, Minnesota law requires that the gun carrier have a readily available ID while carrying, which Pretti did not have. And finally, getting into a violent struggle with any LEO’s, especially while armed, is a sure recipe to get shot.
I'd like to see him back down from that statement. He should know better.
The right to self defensive is a natural right. It precedes any constitutional amendment.
https://mises.org/mises-wire/guns-against-state
Hardly
The irony here is that now all of a sudden Liberals are all for the Second Amendment.
I have to agree with Lee; I generally have a gun with me most of the time, not always carrying, there's a 9mm stashed in the car too. So, there are instances where if I'm in a prohibited zone, I could be prosecuted. If you don't do anything stupid, you're not likely to win any stupid prizes.
Thanks, Ken. I am seeing that too.
The Marxist-Stalinist gun grabbers have been throwing up Rittenhouse in their defense of Pretti. They don't understand that Kyle didn't go armed to an event where the insurrectionists are literally attacking the police verbally and physically; or that he actually laid hands on officers while "helping someone up."
Pretti didn't have a dog in that hunt and needed to keep out of it.
Actually it's the other way around. Many liberals have guns. Its America. The ironic part is REPUBLICANS are saying its not ok to go out in public with a firearm.
No such thing as a prohibited zone outside of a school.
All Veterans Administration properties and parking lots. I generally don't worry about that too much, I'm certainly not foolish enough to bring one inside.
He had the right to go to the protest armed. It's what he did while armed that's the problem. That's what Patel should be addressing. This isn't a Second Amendment issue.
Not a fan of Director Patel. He has a horrible stance on this issue. Let's not reward the government with more power - that's how we got here in the first place.
I understand your anger and share your concerns. Giving more power to the government is often not the answer to problems; it may even lead to repeating past mistakes. What we need now is checks and balances and accountability, not further expansion of power. Do you think that would work?
This illustrates the inconsistency with which citizens often approach rights and freedoms. Following the Minnesota shooting, many on the Left have become vocal advocates for Second Amendment protections. Conversely, some on the Right now argue for a situational right to carry based on how an individual is perceived by government authorities and law enforcement. This represents a dangerous precedent, one that carries significant potential for abuse. The selective application of constitutional rights and freedoms contributes directly to public cynicism toward government institutions. It is worth remembering that the NRA supported the Mulford Act, signed by then-Governor Ronald Reagan, which restricted the firearm rights of California residents. Either we uphold the freedoms protected by the Constitution consistently, or we do not. Situational freedom under the law is not a viable principle.
Incredibly well said, sir!
I don’t hear many on the right say what you claim.
I hear the vast majority say, if you go armed, do not put hands on LEOs and do not resist arrest.
Not that those are good ideas when unarmed, but they are suicidally stupid ideas when armed.
A meme I saw summed it up nicely. It said,
“I took Minnesota’s concealed carry class.
It was seven hours of ‘Don’t do what Alex Pretti did.’”
Those on the Right whom I referenced happen to be those with the greatest influence. I am speaking specifically about comments from administration officials immediately following the killing of Alex Pretti. Your assertion that he put his hands on law enforcement officers and resisted arrest was a premature, subjective claim made by these individuals, one that is unsupported by evidence and will ultimately be determined by investigations. What is objectively true is that he was exercising his Second Amendment right, as a lawful gun owner, to carry his handgun. He was also lawfully exercising his First Amendment right to peaceably assemble. The exercise of these constitutional rights should not place someone at risk of death.
I am uncertain who “the vast majority” you reference are; however, legal actions that you or they deem to be stupid do not constitute a justifiable killing. This is exactly what I meant by “situational rights and perceptions.” As responsible firearm owners and Second Amendment supporters, we should resist any effort by the government, regardless of party, to infringe upon our rights and the values we seek to protect. I understand the passion associated with partisan politics. However, as citizens, the unending pursuit of liberty and preservation of our constitutional freedoms must supersede loyalty to any elected officials, irrespective of political policy.
The fundamental principles of our union are its laws, not hearsay and social media memes.
Pretti very clearly shoves an ICE agent in at least two videos. He then ends up in a tussle with that agent and several others.
Those are not legal actions.
Even if we posit that Pretti’s initial intent was to protect a woman whom the initial ICE agent had shoved, his putting hands on the agent was illegal.
So Pretti was not peacefully assembling.
You are dissembling.
He was losing his balance. You can say whatever you want to make yourself sleep better but he was murdered and that's the end of it.
Again, you’ve made a claim based on your subjective view of the facts. Fortunately, your view does not constitute facts or the law. I’ll leave that to the investigations. My purpose is to defend constitutional rights, not to debate video footage. Your last comment was an ad hominem barb directed at me. This type of response is emotional and occurs in lieu of serious conversation. Continuing would be unproductive and not the best investment of my time, so I will bow out of the discussion.
https://substack.com/@policelawnews/note/c-205787048?r=1gnoo1&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
Hands on, right here in the video.
He then tries to back off, but the agent had decided to make an arrest.
The Framers didn't trust the new government they were creating, neither do I.
My family & I fully support Director Patel. My wife & I have had CCW permits for over 15 years & yes, I carry every single day @ work & in the house. There is a huge difference between 2nd Amendment rights and stupidly joining what you know is a violent "riot" and brandishing your gun. If you want to destroy your life, go ahead with that & see where that leads to.
You have clearly not watched the videos. He was not “brandishing” his gun. It was holstered until it was removed by the ICE agent. It was only after it was removed and the man was on his knees, that he was shot (3 times) in the back, and then the rest of them finished him off.
Lee, I'm glad you touched on the yammering about the 'he had 2 fully loaded magazines' BS. So what?!? Hell, that's my normal EDC load out.
MSM was squealing like a bunch of pigs and clutching their pearls over the '2 fully loaded magazines' BS. SMH...
I know, right! Thanks, CK.
That was noem and patel and bessent.
???
"Two high capacity magazines."
Pretti was carrying a Sig 320, which is pretty much an M18. His also had optics AND threaded barrel. So his mags were standard capacity.
Also in one video I watched Pretti reached for the place where his by then empty holster was. To me I think he was reaching for his sidearm, not realizing an agent had reached in the scuffle and snatched the pistol away.
Patel should publicly clarify this statement. Personally, I believe he suffered from "Trumpism" meaning he speaks fragmented thoughts with no pre-thought as to how the press and Americans will take his statement.
Here in this case I will give the benefit of the doubt that he was specifically speaking only regarding the Minnesota killing of a lawful conceal carrying man with two magazines who was obstructing ICE and physically laying hands on ICE and other federal government officers, for the purpose of protecting protestors from federal officer's orders to cease obstruction.
Lawful 2nd Amendment conceal carrying individuals don't obstruct federal agents carrying out lawful missions simply because by doing so they are no longer lawful conceal carrying individuals. They become armed felons assaulting federal officers.
I think this is what he meant but fell far short from verbalizing this.......I hope.
There are 38,000 agents in the FBI alone. I sincerely doubt that any proclaimed purge removed all or even most of the leftist actors. The core culture of the FBI hasn't just turned 180 degrees from the Obama/Biden reign of terror. If it even made a distinct about face there would be a flurry of whistleblowers and insider books on the subject. I can't name a one. Maybe we have to wait until the agents retire and protect their pensions before any exposé's are published. I won't hold my breath. Omertà, you know.
Mr. Williams you are absolutely correct. Thank you for your Second Amendment advocacy.
Thanks for reading.
Much appreciated, Lee!
Thanks!
I've read all the comments here (as of 2:30pm central time). I agree with most on both sides. I've had Texas licenses (CHL, then LTC) since 2005. Texas allows a business or nonprofit to have specific signs for no carry or no open carry (TX code 30.06 and 30.07). The law is painfully specific about the signage being certain size, type face, in two languages, and a every normal entrance. Given all that, it is possible for a business to be not 100% in compliance and therefore technically cannot bar me from carrying in their establishment.
If I did carry based on their noncompliance, and some dumbass assistant manager detected my concealed Sig P365 and called the police, I could be arrested. Yes, I would win in the end on that faulty signage issue, but is it worth it? I do have prepaid legal including bail bond and expert witness coverage, so I probably wouldn't be out of pocket any money. However, a lot of time would be expended, it might take me a year to get my Sig back, AND I'm pretty sure I'd have an arrest on my record. Again, I'd be technically in the right but never the same as before I decided to take a chance proving it.
This case seems an obvious example of how you can be right and still dead. I would never put myself in that position, and I suspect hardly anyone here would either. Yeah, we're smart enough to stay home rather than get into a mess between armed federal officers and a mix of paid and insane protesters. We'd be at home talking with the real estate agent about selling our home, while also applying for work in Tennessee, Florida, or Texas.
Finally, I'll give Patel a few goofs, just like I do DJT. In both cases, those current office holders are 1,000% better than those they replaced. BTW, I just declined attendance at a convention in El Paso, because it's being held at a Hilton property with 30.06 and 30.07 signage at the front doors. I explained to the organizers, "I'm not going to drive 900 miles to stay at a hotel on I-10 in a border town, and then leave my personal protection in my car!"
Thanks for reading.
"Anyone who goes unarmed in Paradise, better be sure that's where he is."--James Thurber
I believe Minnesota's carry law was written by professor Joe Olson and passed in 2005 (initially in 2003 but overturned on a technicality) under the Tim Pawlenty republican administration. The Democrats have been constantly trying to take away our rights since then, resisted by GOCRA intiatialy, and now by MNGOC headed by Bryan Stawser and crew..
Kash Patel is an unqualified bozo, with no relevant experience to justify his appointment. Every time he opens his mouth, he puts his foot in it. His media appearances give every indication of a deer in the headlights.
It's no wonder he doesn't understand the Second Amendment, since his acquaintance with the Constitution appears to be in passing.
All governments hate the notion of a free, armed citizenry, regarding such (rightly) as a deadly threat to their authoritarian power grabs.