Social media posts about Preeti deepen political rift
Similar to the aftermath of George Floyd’s death in 2020, the video of Alex Preti’s death on social media has had a huge impact on public perception.
- On January 24, a Border Patrol agent shot and killed American citizen Alex Pretti in Minneapolis. The shooting occurred weeks after ICE agents fatally shot 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good in the city.
- Trump administration officials have questioned why Preti had the gun on her when she had no intention of harming her, a departure from the administration’s past calls for a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment.
- The shooting highlighted the tension that can exist between First and Second Amendment rights. Experts said advocates from all sides of the gun debate found common ground in defending Preti.
President Donald Trump twice asked 37-year-old Alex Preti, who was shot and killed by a Border Patrol agent in Minneapolis on January 27, why he had a gun.
The administration has long advocated a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment. But then, on January 24, a shooting incident occurred that killed Preeti. The incident occurred weeks after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer shot and killed Renee Nicole Good, 37, in the same city.
President Trump told reporters on January 27 that he did not believe Preti was an “assassin” but questioned why he armed himself.
“You can’t have a gun. You can’t walk in with a gun. You can’t do that. It’s very unfortunate,” he said.
At an event in Iowa on the same day, President Trump called the shooting “very unfortunate” and reiterated, “I don’t like that he had a gun.”
This is “a pretty sharp reversal,” said Emma Brown, executive director of Giffords, an organization that advocates for gun reform led by former U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords.
But they also said it was a rare moment of common ground among people on all sides of the gun debate, criticizing the idea that Mr. Preti, a licensed gun owner, should not have carried a gun when interacting with law enforcement or participating in protests against the Trump administration’s aggressive immigration enforcement.
“I think there’s as much tension between the First and Second Amendments as there is tension between the Trump administration and the Constitution at this point,” Brown said.
USA TODAY has reached out to the Department of Justice, Department of Homeland Security and National Rifle Association for comment.
Here’s what you need to know about the First and Second Amendment implications of the shooting.
Did Preeti have a gun? Did he have the right to do so?
According to DHS, Preti was in possession of a 9mm semi-automatic handgun at the time of the incident.
Video of the shooting did not show Preetti brandishing the gun just before he was shot. He was also shown holding up his cell phone to record law enforcement, which is protected by the First Amendment.
Witnesses also did not see Preti brandishing a gun in front of law enforcement, according to an affidavit filed in federal court. Minnesota law allows those with a permit to carry guns in public and does not require them to be concealed.
Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara said Preti was “exercising his First Amendment right to document law enforcement activities and also exercising his Second Amendment right to be lawfully armed in public places in our city.”
How did the Trump administration respond to the shooting incident?
Some within the Trump administration defended Preti, describing him as a “domestic terrorist” intent on killing law enforcement. Preeti’s family issued a statement saying this was a lie and such comments were “reprehensible and disgusting”.
In an interview published in the Wall Street Journal on January 25, President Trump said, “I don’t like any shootings.”
“But I don’t like it when someone goes to a protest and that person has a very powerful, fully loaded gun, with two magazines loaded with bullets as well,” President Trump said. “That’s not good either.”
The White House referred to USA TODAY’s comments from press secretary Caroline Leavitt at a January 26 press conference in which she said President Trump “supports the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans.”
At the same time, Levitt said, “Americans have no constitutional right to obstruct lawful immigration enforcement.”
At the same news conference, Levitt said Americans “of course” have First Amendment rights, but reiterated the administration’s assertion that the exercise of those freedoms cannot interfere with the operation of the Union.
What do Second Amendment voters say?
In a Jan. 24 X post, California Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Esseri said, “If you approach law enforcement with a gun, you are likely to be legally shot.”
The National Rifle Association, which has supported Trump in every presidential election since 2016, called the remarks “dangerous and wrong.” The group’s own XPost called on authorities to wait until the investigation is complete rather than “generalizing and demonizing law-abiding citizens.”
Gun Owners of America also criticized the comments, saying, “The Second Amendment protects Americans’ right to bear arms during protests. This right must not be infringed by the federal government.”
In response to the group’s statement, Essayri wrote, “We have never said that it is legally justified to shoot down a law-abiding submerged aircraft carrier.” He said his comments were “directed at agitators who approach law enforcement with guns and refuse to disarm.”
In contrast, the first Trump administration largely defended Kyle Rittenhouse, the then-teenager who brought an AR-15 rifle to a protest in Wisconsin in 2020 and ended up shooting and killing two people and wounding another. The administration characterized Rittenhouse’s actions as self-defense, and he was ultimately acquitted.
Eric Tirschwell, executive director of Everytown Law, which works to improve gun safety through the legal system, said it’s “totally contradictory” to advocate for the right to bear arms in public while criticizing a man who was killed for doing so.
“What this really highlights…is total opposition to the confusion, lies and victim blaming that accompanies this tragic murder,” Tirschwell said.
Who wants guns banned from protests?
Joseph Blocher, a law professor at Duke University, said laws restricting where people can carry guns are typically enacted at the state or local level, adding that the extent to which the right to bear arms can be restricted is a “significant litigation issue.”
He said that while constitutional rights can be “inextricably linked,” the First and Second Amendments “have a particularly complex relationship.”
“Guns can and have been used to protect speakers and demonstrators, and they can also be used to silence speakers,” he said.
According to Everytown for Gun Safety, more than 20 states have enacted laws that make it illegal to carry long guns into political protests or state capitol buildings. Minnesota is not on that list.
The group ranks the state 14th in the nation for the strongest gun laws and says the state has relatively low rates of gun violence.
Everytown conducted an 18-month study that ended in 2021 and found that armed protests were “nearly six times more likely to turn violent or destructive.”
Contributors: Joey Garrison and Marissa Payne
Breanna Frank is USA TODAY’s First Amendment reporter. Please contact bjfrank@usatoday.com..
USA TODAY’s coverage of First Amendment issues is funded by the Freedom Forum in collaboration with our journalism funding partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.
