The Pretti Shooting: A Test for Gun Rights

Alex Pretti, 37, was an ICU nurse at a VA hospital. He lived less than two miles from where he died.

He was recording Border Patrol agents on his phone. When he saw one knock a woman to the ground, he moved to help her up.

Within seconds: pepper-sprayed, tackled by six or seven agents, disarmed, shot.

The timing: Watch the video. An agent removes Pretti's firearm and steps away. About one second later—while Pretti is still face-down—a shot is fired.

• Then a pause. About three seconds.
• Then nine more shots in rapid succession.

What that pattern tells you: If this were a controlled shoot—an intentional decision to neutralize a threat—you'd expect tight grouping. Shoot until the threat stops. That's training.

One shot, a pause, then a mag dump? That's the pattern of something going wrong followed by panic fire.

The first shooter was positioned directly behind Pretti. He would have had eyes on the disarm.

Minneapolis PD confirmed Pretti had a valid carry permit. No serious criminal history. His weapon was still holstered when he was tackled.

Click to enlarge Federal agents on Nicollet Avenue, Minneapolis. Photo: Chad Davis / CC BY 4.0

What DHS said: Secretary Kristi Noem called Pretti a "domestic terrorist" who came to "inflict maximum damage."

What the video shows: A guy with a cell phone trying to help a woman off the ground.

• He never drew
• He never brandished
• He was disarmed when he was killed

The dangerous part: First Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli posted that "if you approach law enforcement with a gun, there is a high likelihood they will be legally justified in shooting you."

Not draw on law enforcement. Approach them—while legally carrying.

Gun rights organizations across the political spectrum recognized the threat immediately.

The NRA called Essayli's statement "dangerous and wrong"—a rare rebuke of a Trump administration official. Gun Owners of America condemned it as an affront to the Second Amendment. Minnesota Gun Owners Law Center said "You don't have to pick between which rights you exercise."

Between the lines: When the NRA and the Liberal Gun Club issue joint condemnations, something significant just happened.

The contradiction: The same administration is arguing both sides of the Second Amendment.

Last week, the Justice Department urged the Supreme Court to strike down Hawaii's carry restrictions—a Second Amendment violation, they argued.

This week, the same administration says a man legally carrying in an open-carry state brought his death upon himself.

The bottom line: Either Americans have the right to carry firearms in public, or they don't. You can't argue both.

The FBI is leading the investigation. A federal judge issued a TRO requiring DHS to preserve evidence.

Minnesota AG Keith Ellison called it "uncharted territory."

Go deeper: Video evidence has been verified by Reuters, BBC, WSJ, AP, and CNN. Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O'Hara confirmed the permit status. Multiple 2A organizations have called for investigation.

A community member put it better than I can:

"A 'good guy' with a gun—legally owned and permitted—was protecting an unarmed woman from a masked agent of the federal government. This scenario is literally a combination of every major defense that 2A folks have made since Columbine. If the 2A community cannot stand on principle in this instance, then their principled arguments deserve to be ignored in the future."

This isn't about Pretti's politics or whether you'd have been at that protest.

It's about whether "legally carrying near law enforcement" is now de facto justification for lethal force. That's a question every CCW holder needs to think about.

This is opinion. Review the video and form your own conclusions.

Related:

• Carrying at Protests: What CCW Holders Need to Know
• Recording Law Enforcement: Know Your Rights