Alain Stephens is an investigative reporter covering gun violence, arms trafficking, and federal law enforcement.
Border Patrol agents on Saturday shot and killed Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old Minneapolis resident and U.S. citizen. Pretti was an ICU nurse at a Veterans Affairs hospital and legally carrying a sig Sauer pistol. Bystander video shows him filming agents with a phone before being tackled and pinned facedown on the pavement as more than six officers swarm him.according to video of the shooting, at least one officer can be heard shouting “he’s got a gun,” and an agent appears to take Pretti’s weapon and begin to walk away before at least 10 shots ring out. Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara said in a press conference that Pretti was “a lawful gun owner with a permit to carry.” federal officials initially defended the shooting as self-defense, insisting Pretti had resisted disarmament and threatened agents. But open-source analysis by Bellingcat concluded the gun had already been taken from Pretti by the time the shots were fired.
Already, much has been made by the administration over the fact that Pretti was armed, a startling legal shift for officials who publicly espouse their love of the Second Amendment.
The Trump Justice department has now formally embraced the idea that a citizen carrying a legal firearm who approaches federal officers can be shot on sight. First Assistant U.S.Attorney bill Essayli – a Trump appointee – put this new doctrine demanded evidence that Pretti posed any real threat, and insisted that every lawful citizen has the right to carry arms – even in a protest. Its general counsel, Rob Doar, told local news station KSTP that officers “have to have been in reasonable fear of imminent death or great bodily harm” to use deadly force and his read based on the video is “that at the time that the shots were fired he had been disarmed seconds before.” Rick Hodsdon, an expert on permit to carry laws in the state, put an even finer point on the issue: The idea that any citizen approaching armed agents with a legal gun should be shot is ”absurd.”
Other vocal critics rebuked Border Patrol statements implying that Pretti was armed to the teeth,and aiming,as official Greg Bovino claimed,to do “maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.” Veteran gun rights commentator stephen Gutowski reminded followers that carrying extra magazines is common for permit holders. Others pointed out that this new paradigm risks transforming routine encounters with public safety officials into moments of terror for lawful gun owners. Kostas Moros, director of legal research and education for the Second Amendment Foundation, told The Reload, “People should not fear interacting with police officers simply because they are lawfully carrying a firearm.”
For many Second Amendment stalwarts, the Trump administration’s new stance is the ultimate betrayal. The man who vowed never to infringe on gun rights is now sanctioning lethal force against his own voters.
Thou Shalt infringe
Table of Contents
The Pretti killing and its official defense expose a wider hypocrisy in trump’s approach to gun rights, despite his rhetoric. While Trump once praised Kyle Rittenhouse – the armed teenager who killed two people at a protest in Wisconsin – as “really a nice young man” who never deserved to go to trial,he has,throughout his career,quietly supported more gun safety measures than he admits.
During his first term, he casually let it slip that he was fine with taking guns without due process before backtracking. During his first administration, he also famously signed a rule banning bump-fire stocks (devices that simulated fully automatic fire) after the Donald Trump’s Administration and second Amendment Rights
The claim that Donald Trump’s administration shifted the interpretation of gun rights towards federal control, rather than individual freedom, is a complex issue with documented instances of increased federal intervention, but lacks a singular, definitive legal reinterpretation of the Second Amendment. While Trump consistently voiced support for the Second Amendment,his administration’s actions,particularly regarding federal law enforcement deployments,sparked controversy and legal challenges. The core promise of a “Second Amendment utopia” was not realized in a way that universally satisfied gun rights advocates. Detail: During the Trump presidency, there was a notable increase in the deployment of federal law enforcement to cities experiencing unrest, often in response to protests. This included actions by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and, at times, the National Guard. Critics argued these deployments overstepped federal authority and possibly infringed upon the rights of citizens, including the right to bear arms. The use of federal agents in Portland, Oregon, in July 2020, became a focal point of this debate. The Department of Justice Office of the Inspector General released a report in September 2020 detailing the deployment and finding some issues with planning and coordination, but not necessarily illegality. Example or Evidence: The NRA, while a strong supporter of Trump, expressed concerns about certain federal actions. In a letter to Attorney General William Barr in August 2020, the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) requested clarification on the legal basis for federal law enforcement actions in Portland and other cities, specifically regarding the potential for infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens. ### The assertion that the Trump administration established a policy justifying the use of “deadly force” against Americans simply for possessing a gun in front of federal agents is an oversimplification and lacks broad legal support, but incidents did occur that raised these concerns. Federal law enforcement officers are authorized to use deadly force only when they reasonably believe there is an imminent threat to their lives or the lives of others, a standard that applies irrespective of whether the individual is armed. Detail: The incidents cited in the original text likely refer to shootings involving federal agents during protests or enforcement actions. These incidents prompted investigations and legal scrutiny. The standard for the use of force by federal law enforcement is governed by departmental policies and federal law, including Department of Justice guidelines on the use of force. These guidelines emphasize proportionality and the necessity of using the least amount of force necessary to achieve a legitimate law enforcement objective.The claim of a *de facto* policy change is not supported by publicly available official policy documents. Example or evidence: In Minneapolis, in 2020, federal agents shot and killed Winston Boogie Smith during an arrest operation. The New York Times reported on the incident and subsequent investigation. While the investigation found the shooting justified, it sparked protests and renewed debate about the role of federal agents in local law enforcement. As of January 2026, no widespread policy change explicitly authorizing the use of deadly force solely based on the presence of a firearm has been implemented. ### The claim that increased federal deployments create a chilling effect on the exercise of Second Amendment rights is a valid concern raised by gun rights advocates, but the extent of this effect is debated. Increased federal presence in cities, particularly during times of civil unrest, can lead to heightened tensions and potential confrontations between armed citizens and federal agents. Detail: The deployment of federal agents to cities, particularly under the guise of protecting federal property, raised concerns about overreach and the potential for escalating conflicts. The legal basis for these deployments was often contested, with critics arguing that they exceeded the scope of federal authority. The presence of heavily armed federal agents can create an intimidating environment and potentially deter citizens from exercising their right to bear arms, particularly during protests or demonstrations. Example or Evidence: in September 2020, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLUFederal Use of Force and Armed Citizens
Federal Deployments and the Second Amendment
