SCOTUS, Shooting Crack Second Amendment

The carry contradiction: Two things happened this week that every permit holder needs to see side by side — and they don't fit together.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Wolford v. Lopez, a challenge to Hawaii's law requiring concealed-carry permit holders to get explicit written permission from business owners before carrying on private property open to the public. Meanwhile, in Minneapolis, Trump administration officials spent the week publicly arguing that Alex Pretti — a 37-year-old lawfully carrying with a Minnesota permit — had forfeited his rights by showing up to a protest armed. Federal agents shot him at least ten times after wrestling him to the ground and removing his weapon.

• Pretti was carrying legally. Minnesota allows open and concealed carry with a permit and has no prohibition on firearms at protests. Licensed gun owners can carry inside the state Capitol.
• The weapon was already removed before the shots were fired, according to video reviewed by CNN.

What they're saying: The administration's public statements after the shooting don't hold up against Minnesota statute.

• FBI Director Kash Patel said on Fox News: "You cannot bring a firearm loaded with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want. It's that simple." That is flatly incorrect under Minnesota law.
• Border Patrol Commander-at-Large Gregory Bovino told CNN the shooting was justified because Pretti "meant to" obstruct law enforcement — without offering evidence.
• Prosecutor Bill Essayli posted on X that approaching law enforcement with a gun means "there is a high likelihood they will be legally justified in shooting you."

The gun rights groups that normally align with this administration weren't having it. The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus called Patel's claim "completely incorrect on Minnesota law." The NRA called Essayli's statement "dangerous and wrong" and warned officials against "making generalizations and demonizing law-abiding citizens." The Gun Owners of America said the Second Amendment "protects Americans' right to bear arms while protesting — a right the federal government must not infringe upon."

Reality check: The Justice Department filed a brief this term urging the Supreme Court to strike down Hawaii's law in Wolford v. Lopez — arguing it tramples Second Amendment rights. That happened one week before administration officials argued a man was legitimately killed for exercising those same rights in public.

• University of Minnesota Law professor Megan Walsh, who specializes in the Second Amendment, put it plainly: "He was lawfully carrying a firearm, and that is not any license to kill someone."
• Former Hennepin County prosecutor Amy Sweasy called it a contradiction: an administration "very, very vocal in protecting Second Amendment rights" is now blaming a victim for exercising the exact rights they claim to defend.

Zoom in: The Wolford arguments exposed a fault line inside the Court's conservative majority. Hawaii's law bars permit holders from carrying on private property open to the public — stores, restaurants, parking lots — without explicit owner permission. Since Bruen (2022), gun laws survive constitutional review only if the government can point to historical analogs from the founding era.

• Hawaii's lawyers cited a 1771 New Jersey statute and a 1763 New York law, both restricting carry on private land without owner permission.
• The Republican-appointed justices signaled they'll likely strike it down anyway — Chief Justice Roberts argued the Second Amendment has been treated as a "disfavored right"; Justice Alito accused Hawaii of "relegating the Second Amendment to second-class status."
• The Trump administration argued for the challengers, with Principal Deputy Solicitor General Sarah Harris warning that a property-rights reading of Wolford could open the door to banning tenants from owning guns without landlord consent.

A ruling is expected before the term ends this summer. If the conservative majority strikes Hawaii's law — as oral argument suggests they will — it pushes the Bruen framework deeper into everyday public carry and limits what states can do about where permit holders go.

What to watch: What that ruling means in practice may depend partly on whether the same administration that championed it keeps arguing, in the streets, that lawful carry is grounds for lethal force. Gun owners are watching an administration defend their rights in court while undermining them on the ground — and the gun rights groups that typically run cover for that administration are saying so out loud.

Go deeper:

• https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/26/politics/second-amendment-minneapolis-trump-pretti-shooting-nra
• https://www.scotusblog.com/2026/01/supreme-court-appears-sympathetic-to-gun-owners-challenge-to-hawaii-law/
• https://www.vox.com/politics/475810/supreme-court-bruen-wolford-lopez-hawaii