Following the shooting of Alex Pretti by ICE officers in Minneapolis on January 24, 2026, multiple administration officials made comments about legal concealed carry that cast doubt on the Administration’s support for the 2^nd Amendment of the Constitution:

 “This was a domestic terrorist.” Steven Miller, Deputy White House Chief of Staff
Miller characterized Pretti as a violent threat, with firearm possession cited by administration officials as part of the rationale—despite Pretti holding a valid concealed-carry permit and not being shown holding a gun in videos.

“I don’t know of any peaceful protester that shows up with a gun and ammunition rather than a sign.” Kristi Noem, Secretary of Department of Homeland Security
Noem used Pretti’s lawful possession of a firearm as part of her justification for the agents’ actions, implying that carrying a gun was incompatible with peaceful protest. 

“You cannot bring a firearm, loaded, with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want.” Kash Patel, Director, FBI
Patel suggested that carrying a firearm at a protest was improper, a statement that drew backlash because Pretti was legally permitted to carry under Minnesota law. 

“This looks like a situation where an individual wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.” Greg Bovino, Commander-at-Large Border Patrol
Bovino cited Pretti’s firearm possession as indicative of violent intent, a claim disputed by video evidence and later investigations.

”A deranged individual who came in to cause massive damage with a loaded pistol was shot and killed. How much more does it have to go on before the Democrat leaders take responsibility for their words?” Senator Markwayne Mullins, Secretary of DHS nominee.

The response to these statements by pro-Second Amendment Groups was swift and unequivocal:

National Rifle Association

“The NRA unequivocally believes that all law‑abiding citizens have a right to keep and bear arms anywhere they have a legal right to be.” The NRA explicitly rejected the idea that lawful carry becomes illegitimate at protests or public demonstrations.

In response to the administration’s remarks, the NRA stressed that lawful carry does not imply criminal or violent intent, emphasizing that constitutional rights do not depend on an individual’s proximity to law enforcement or protests. 

National Association for Gun Rights

The group said Patel’s remarks “set a dangerous precedent for Second Amendment rights”, arguing that legality—not government discretion—governs where firearms may be carried. 

Other Gun Rights Advocates

Several Republican‑aligned gun‑rights defenders rejected the administration’s logic that “having a gun equals being dangerous,” warning that such reasoning undermines long‑standing conservative Second Amendment principles. 

Groups countered that “prudence” cannot replace legality, warning that allowing officers or officials to redefine lawful carry as suspicious effectively nullifies the Second Amendment in public spaces.

Idaho’s U.S. representatives must push back against these threats to our 2^nd Amendment rights and stand-up for Idahoans’ rights to legally carry a concealed weapon wherever it is legal to do so. Tell your U.S. representatives that you want them to be vocal about protecting our 2^nd Amendment Rights.