The Left’s Second Amendment Whiplash | 2.8.26

Giffords and other gun control advocacy groups that suddenly are just staunch supporters of the Second Amendment, right? And so it's a weird upside-down world that we're living in. And I think at the end of the day, this is all a bunch of PR stunts from the gun control advocacy groups. They're not really interested in any way to perform in defending Second Amendment rights. And I think that's unfortunate for the Trump administration. Because again, They have so many Second Amendment victories that they could be celebrating. And I think what most average Americans are seeing right now is language coming out of the Trump administration that puts them in the same category as the language often used by gun control groups. And so it puts them in a bit of a quagmire. And it's unfortunate because it doesn't reflect the reality of actions. Now, did some of those regrettable comments you've mentioned in response to the Pretty situation come from Kash Patel? Yes, so Kash Patel was one of those, certainly not the only one that has come out. Basically, between Kash Patel and a couple of other members of the administration, there was this general sense in their immediate comments. of, you know, rushing to the fact that the individual who was shot, Alex Prettie, was carrying a firearm at, you could characterize it as a protest. I would characterize it as, frankly, illegal non-First Amendment protected activity. And I think what was difficult for these members of the administration, including Captain Tell, was trying to find a way to articulate what the problem was. was. And what actually came out of their mouths was essentially saying, well, the problem was that Alex Prattie was carrying a firearm in public or around law enforcement or he was carrying a particular type of firearm with particular types of magazines. And I'm not sure that that's actually what they meant to convey. It certainly is not what the actual problem was, right? The problem was what Alex Prattie was doing while he was carrying that firearm. and the manner in which he approached law enforcement with that firearm. Right, and we've since seen video of him allegedly kicking in the taillight of an ice vehicle, so some violent inclinations in the past interactions. But it does seem from initial investigations that this might have been just a really tragic sequence of events in how the firearm in particular prompted lethal response. In some ways, this does beg the question then, are citizens safer when they aren't allowed to carry a weapon in certain situations? Or is the argument that they're always safer if they do feel like they're going to be in a situation where they're threatened? When you look at your average ordinary law-abiding gun owner, absolutely. They are safer when they are carrying that firearm, when they have the ability to respond to criminal violence with, you often hear firearms called death at a distance, right? That they're able to remove themselves from that violent confrontation and still defend themselves.

Obviously, that changes when you have someone who is prone to criminal activity, when you have someone who is mentally unstable and they have that firearm, right? But that's not what we're talking about with your average ordinary law-abiding gun owner. If certainly when you are that ordinary gun owner and you find yourself going into confrontational circumstances, that again, that changes the reality. If you are going out of your way to confront law enforcement, to confront anybody and you're going in arms, the presence of that firearm is going to change that dynamic fundamentally for better or for worse. And in this case, I think you are correct. that it fundamentally changed it for worse. I don't think that was ever necessarily Alex Predey's intent. I don't get the sense that he intended to, and he certainly did not ever draw that firearm to threaten law enforcement. But its presence in that confrontational manner, as soon as law enforcement became aware of that, well, now you've got a fundamentally different dynamic where law enforcement doesn't know his intent. You've got multiple officers trying to figure out where that gun is, what to do with it. And I truly think you have a tragic misinterpretation of the circumstances by the officer who ultimately shot him. But it's a complicated dynamic. And I don't think that undermines the Second Amendment reality. I think some of this is incumbent upon Alex Preddy and the circumstances he intentionally went into and fostered while lawfully carrying that firearm. Howdy shoppers, fire up that propane grill and settle in for a new season of Hulu's hit animated series, King of the Hill. Hank and Peggy are staying active in retirement. That's a dog? You will not have to lift a finger. Bobby and Connie hard-launched their relationship. Now that we're dating, it's important your parents know I'm a man. And the alley guys are, well, there's still the alley guys. Yep. Watch the new season of the Hulu original series, King of the Hill. Now streaming on Hulu and Hulu on Disney Plus for bundle subscribers. Terms applied, this has been a paid ad... I think a lot of people have looked at this incident and the situation with Renee Good, and they both come down to split second decisions that have to be made by these officers. A perceived threat, whether or not it's a real threat, comes into play when we're talking about the legal arguments in these cases. What are the arguments that are at play on both sides here in terms of both Good and Preddy? For both of them, for the law enforcement officer who used lethal force, that analysis, that legal analysis is going to be sustained. So in order for that use of force to be justified, that officer had to reasonably believe, have a reasonable fear that he was about to be an imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. Right? So he doesn't have to actually have already had that harm inflicted, and he can't just wildly guess. There needs to be some reasonable component. as to why he feared that he wasn't at imminent risk of that. So in the case of Renee Good, that he was imminently about to be hit by a vehicle, which is a deadly object, right? That is certainly something that can afflict serious bodily harm. And in the case of Alex Preti, you're looking at, did that officer reasonably believe that Alex Preddy had...

access to that firearm was about to use that firearm. So that's going to be the same for both of these scenarios. I think one of the biggest distinguishing factors is that we now know from the Alex Preddy video, right? We can slow that down. We can analyze it from all these different angles. And we know that as a matter of objective fact, at the moment Alex Predey was shot, he didn't have possession of that firearm. It had been taken away from him. And so I think a lot of people are struggling with this next concept of could the officer have been objectively wrong, but still reasonable in his interpretation of what was happening because he just didn't know, right? Did he see Alex Freddie's phone in his hand and believe that was the firearm? You know, so you've got the sort of. complicating factor here of something being objectively wrong, but still potentially reasonable. One other question related to both of these cases. We see the battle now going on between the state and local investigators versus federal investigators into these situations where you might have had maybe misconduct by law enforcement, questions about the proper use of force, etc. Where are the lines? Can the federal government just say no, the local and state officials cannot intervene and cannot investigate? Yeah, well, so it's certainly difficult because you have potentially crimes or civil actions at both a state and a federal level. You know, certainly there's nothing that the federal government can do to definitively stop a state investigation. there's going to be that tension, and it's not always clear sort of who has, at the end of the day, the authority to tell who to do what. But I do think, again, that's part of the tension of federalism. You have potentially charges under state law and state investigation charges. And I understand from the administration's viewpoint, you have a state. in Minnesota that you have officials that have been wildly non-compliant and unhelpful in terms of enforcing federal immigration law who have been bombastic and really feigning the flames of a lot of this community tension. And so they don't necessarily trust local police, local officials to do this investigation in a thorough way. But at the end of the day, that that tension is always going to be there when you have both. you know, state and federal charges potentially. So in that case, we might see federal officials simply refuse to cooperate with local and state investigations. Well, I think that's certainly a possibility in anything that is most likely what will happen. I don't think. given the relationship or lack thereof that has developed between state and federal officials, that the administration is really wanting to cooperate or be helpful in as much as the state of Minnesota is not wanting to be helpful in enforcing immigration law. And I don't know that there's a good answer to that. And in fact, I think the best scenario would be the salvaging of that relationship. I think so much of this tension would resolve itself.

if state and local officials would be more cooperative, or at least not actively hindering federal enforcement of those immigration laws. Right, and that's clearly Tom Homan's main goal right now, trying to encourage more cooperation from the state and local officials. Final question, pretty broad for you. But is there a second amendment case you're following that we should be more aware of? Well, I'll give you two things. So at the Supreme Court level, we've now heard oral argument in the follow-up to the Bruin case. So it's a case called Wolford v. Lopez. The short version of this is Hawaii, after the Supreme Court told them at a bunch of other states, hey, you actually do have to give ordinary citizens some method of carrying in public. You do have to issue them public carry permits. Hawaii said, Fine. We'll give you the permits, but we are going to make them utterly worthless outside the home. So it's a case involving some of those restrictions that Hawaii has put on those permits. We should have a decision in that by the middle of the summer. And all indications seem to be that the Supreme Court is gearing up to. And this is a very, very official technical term, headbop Hawaii over this. So look out for that. And I'd say one of the... Bigger things that's sort of flying under the radar for those who are not living in Virginia is what Democrats are doing in Virginia in terms of gun laws. Almost immediately, we've seen a slew of legislation threatening to turn Virginia basically into the East Coast equivalent of California in terms of gun laws. So keep an eye out for what's going on there because I think ultimately that will end up a bigger national news, but flying under the radar right now. We've been tracking the very aggressive leftward turn of Virginia and a lot of legislation going on there with the new leadership. Meanwhile, I'll look up in my legal dictionary what headbop means so that I'm fully versed on your argument. Amy, thank you so much for joining us. Thank you for having. That was Amy Swearer, Senior Legal Fellow at Advancing American Freedom, and this has been a weekend edition of Morning Wire.

Traditional banks are making it harder than ever to secure a small business loan. That's why thousands of business owners trust Cardiff for same-day funding. With over two decades of expertise, business owners keep voting Cardiff, America's favorite small business lender. Apply now for up to $500,000 in same-day business funding at cardiff.co slash Spotify. Again, that's cardiff.com slash Spotify. Cardiff, borrow better.