GOA Condemns Trump Official's Shooting Claims
-
GOA Condemns Trump Official's Shooting Claims
Gun Owners of America condemned a Trump administration official's claim that federal agents were "legally justified" in shooting Minneapolis protester Alex Jeffrey Pretti because he carried a concealed firearm.
U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli wrote on X that "if you approach law enforcement with a gun, there is a high likelihood they will be legally justified in shooting you." Video evidence showed Pretti approached ICE agents with his phone in hand to record their actions, not a weapon.
Why it matters: The controversy pits Second Amendment advocates against the Trump administration over whether lawful concealed carry creates grounds for lethal force.
- GOA's statement marks a rare public break between gun rights groups and Trump officials over enforcement tactics.
- The incident raises questions about concealed carry rights during encounters with federal agents conducting immigration raids.
What they're saying: Gun rights groups across the spectrum condemned Essayli's statement.
- GOA called it "untoward" and said federal agents aren't "highly likely" to be "legally justified" in shooting concealed carry licensees.
- The group emphasized that "the Second Amendment protects Americans' right to bear arms while protesting—a right the federal government must not infringe upon."
- The NRA has remained silent despite social media pressure to take a stand on Pretti's carrying rights.
Between the lines: The split highlights tension between Trump's pro-gun rhetoric and aggressive federal enforcement.
- Pretti held a valid Minnesota concealed carry permit, making his firearm possession completely legal under state and federal law.
- ICE agents removed the gun from Pretti after tackling him to the ground, then shot him nine times while he was pinned face-down.
- The Department of Homeland Security later claimed the shooting was in "self-defense" despite video showing Pretti was disarmed and restrained.
The broader context: This incident comes as Trump has systematically weakened gun regulations while expanding federal law enforcement powers.
- In April, Trump repealed Biden's "zero tolerance" policy that increased oversight of problem gun dealers.
- Throughout 2025, the administration cut $811 million in violence intervention grants and redirected ATF agents to immigration enforcement.
- Research funding for gun violence prevention was halted in July, then restored a month later amid legal challenges.
What this means for you: The administration's position could affect how concealed carry holders interact with federal agents.
- GOA's statement suggests even pro-Trump gun groups see Essayli's comments as dangerous precedent.
- Concealed carry holders may face increased scrutiny during federal operations, particularly immigration raids.
- The legal landscape remains unclear on whether disclosure requirements exist when carrying near federal agents.
The legal reality: Federal law generally protects concealed carry rights, but enforcement varies by administration.
- Minnesota law explicitly allows concealed carry with proper permits, which Pretti possessed.
- Federal agents typically cannot arrest someone solely for lawful firearm possession.
- However, the Trump administration has expanded immigration enforcement powers and agent discretion.
What's next: GOA called for a "complete, transparent, and prompt" DOJ investigation into the shooting.
- The group's two million members represent a significant GOP constituency that could pressure Trump on enforcement tactics.
- Legal challenges to the administration's immigration enforcement methods are already underway in multiple courts.
- Gun rights advocates are watching whether other organizations like the NRA will break their silence.
Go deeper:
- Gun Owners of America statement on Minneapolis shooting
- Trump's first-year gun policy changes
- ATF enforcement under Trump administration
Read the original article in The Handbook | By Steve Duskett
Join the Discussion
When a federal shooting involves a CCW holder, where do you think the line should be between law enforcement's authority and a citizen's right to self-defense?
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better đź’—
Register Login