A growing backlash from gun-rights advocates and Republican voices is targeting statements made by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and FBI Director Kash Patel, with critics accusing senior Trump administration officials of misstating both gun laws and the circumstances surrounding the fatal shooting of Minneapolis ICU nurse Alex Pretti.
The criticism is significant because it is coming from groups and commentators typically aligned with the administration. Gun-rights organizations say inaccurate public statements about firearms at protests — and about Pretti’s actions — are damaging government credibility at a time when immigration enforcement tactics are already under intense public scrutiny.
A Trump adviser acknowledged privately that the administration is now facing criticism “from all sides.”
Dispute over gun laws at protests
During a Sunday television appearance, Patel claimed that protesters cannot legally bring a loaded firearm with multiple magazines to demonstrations. Noem echoed that view, saying she did not know of any “peaceful protester” who would arrive with a gun and ammunition rather than a sign.
The Gun Owners Caucus of Minnesota forcefully rejected those assertions, stating that Patel’s remarks were incorrect under Minnesota law. According to the group, the state does not prohibit licensed permit holders from carrying a loaded firearm — even with multiple magazines — at protests or rallies.
The caucus’ president said Noem’s understanding of Minnesota firearms law was “fundamentally wrong,” and also criticized her comments suggesting Pretti lacked identification while carrying a concealed weapon.
Even organizations that advocate for gun restrictions acknowledge that Minnesota law does not impose a blanket ban on firearms at protests, though many protest organizers advise demonstrators not to bring weapons to avoid escalation with law enforcement.
An FBI spokesperson later said Patel was not speaking to the technical wording of the law but to the real-world dangers of showing up armed at protests where tensions with police may arise.
Conflicting accounts of the shooting
Controversy intensified after Noem repeated a Department of Homeland Security account claiming Pretti approached Border Patrol agents armed with a 9mm handgun, reacted violently when officers attempted to disarm him, and “brandished” the weapon.
Videos recorded from multiple angles appear to contradict that account:
No visible weapon: Pretti is seen holding a smartphone in his right hand while recording. His left hand appears empty.
How the conflict began: The confrontation did not start over a firearm but when Pretti attempted to assist two women involved in a dispute with officers.
Gun found later: Pretti’s handgun was reportedly strapped to his back waistband and discovered only after he was taken to the ground.
Sequence of events: An officer removed the firearm, shouted “gun,” and Pretti was shot after he had already been disarmed.
DHS has defended its statements as accurate based on agent reports from what it described as an “evolving” situation. Officials, however, have not explained how the term “brandishing” accurately applies, and senior administration figures avoided directly answering that question in subsequent interviews.
Political fallout grows
The shooting has intensified pressure on DHS, which was already facing criticism over aggressive enforcement encounters captured on video and earlier disputed statements by senior Border Patrol officials. Noem’s handling of the situation has sparked calls for impeachment from Democrats and unusually sharp criticism from conservative commentators.
One prominent conservative analyst wrote that Noem appeared to be asserting facts she “could not know or that were untrue,” arguing that portraying ammunition possession itself as inherently suspicious undermines core Second Amendment principles.
What began as an immigration-enforcement incident has grown into a broader credibility crisis. As gun-rights groups, Republicans, and conservative media figures openly challenge official narratives, the administration now faces skepticism not only from opponents — but from within its own political base.
No comments:
Post a Comment