Shall Not Be Infringed (Terms and Conditions May Apply)

John in Atlanta asked: So is concealed carry still cool on the Right or does that make you a domestic terrorist now? I can’t keep up any more. Things are just moving so fast!

You picked a hell of a week to ask, John.

So here’s what happened: federal agents shot and killed a guy named Alex Pretti in Minneapolis on Saturday. He had a concealed carry permit—fully legal in Minnesota—and had a firearm on him, which video appears to show federal agents discovering and removing during the altercation. Videos do not appear to show Pretti holding the weapon during the confrontation.

And then the administration went full mask-off (ironic, since their agents are literally masked). Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem justified the killing by asserting Pretti “had a weapon on him, and multiple dozens of rounds of ammunition, wishing to inflict harm on these officers.” She then said, “I don’t know of any peaceful protester that shows up with a gun and ammunition rather than a sign.”

This is the same Kristi Noem who, you may recall, told an NRA conference in 2023 that “Joe Biden and the liberals want our guns” because “it will make it easier for them to infringe on all of our other rights.” The first law she signed as South Dakota’s governor allowed residents to carry concealed weapons without a permit.

FBI Director Kash Patel claimed, “You cannot bring a firearm, loaded, with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want. It’s that simple. You don’t have that right to break the law.”

To which the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus responded: “This is completely incorrect on Minnesota law. There is no prohibition on a permit holder carrying a firearm, loaded, with multiple magazines at a protest or rally in Minnesota.”

So now you’ve got actual gun rights organizations pushing back on the Trump administration. Gun Owners of America’s federal affairs director Aidan Johnston wrote on X: “Oh I’m Antifa now? I guess @TheJusticeDept is back to targeting gun owners as domestic terrorists. You can want illegals & criminals off the streets and not want to see CCW permit holders get executed for ‘approaching’ law enforcement.”

The NRA attacked the administration’s spokesman for “demonizing law-abiding citizens” but then, in classic fashion, blamed “radical progressive politicians” like Tim Walz rather than criticize Trump directly.

The Mises Institute (which is not exactly a bastion of leftist thought) published a piece titled “Republicans and MAGA: Carrying a Gun Is a Bad Thing Now” that called out conservatives for their “sudden infatuation with gun control” and noted that rank-and-file Republicans are “all over social media proclaiming that people should not be allowed to carry guns in the presence of police.”

Dean Phillips—Democratic former congressman from Minnesota—wrote: “For years I quietly mocked 2A defenders who argued arms were necessary to defend American rights against a tyrannical government. Today I apologize, because I’ve seen it with my own eyes.”

So to answer your question: apparently concealed carry is still cool unless you’re near federal agents, in which case it’s evidence of terroristic intent. Unless you’re MAGA and carrying at a protest, in which case it’s patriotic. The rule seems to be “depends on whether you’re on our team.”

The speed of the ideological inversion really is something. Three days ago “the Second Amendment is there so you can defend yourself against a tyrannical government” was conservative gospel. Now it’s “if you peacefully approach law enforcement and happen to have a legal, holstered, concealed firearm that you’re licensed to carry, there’s a high likelihood they will be legally justified in turning you into a fucking colander.”

The velocity of this is what gets me. Not the hypocrisy—hypocrisy is a constant. But the speed. Thirty years of “from my cold dead hands” to “well he shouldn’t have been carrying” in seventy-two hours. No transition period. No uncomfortable silence. Just immediate, full-throated defense of the state killing a legal gun owner because he was inconvenient to a federal operation.

It’s almost impressive, in a “watching the last load-bearing principle collapse in real time” kind of way.

---

John is a composite character representing the confusion of millions of Americans trying to keep track of which constitutional rights are still operative on any given Tuesday.

---

Update: After posting about this, @OvanVinte on X commented:

“This doesn’t happen to any person of good will.”

Translation: If federal agents kill you, you must have deserved it. The state’s violence is self-justifying. The victim’s guilt is proven by the fact that they became a victim.

This is the logic of authoritarianism. It’s circular by design. You had a gun → you were a threat → you deserved to be shot → the shooting proves you were a threat. No external evidence required. No due process necessary. The state acted, therefore the state was right to act.

And note the word “accost.” Standing near federal agents while legally armed is now “accosting” them. The definition of aggression has expanded to include being present with rights the state finds inconvenient.

Also: “This doesn’t happen to any person of good will” is doing a lot of heavy lifting. It’s the “if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to fear” of extrajudicial killing. It presupposes that the only people who get shot by federal agents are people who should get shot by federal agents.