35 Comments » - AlfondoGonz - Tuesday, Jan 27, 26 @ 11:38 am: I’m almost surprised that the GOP’s hypocrisy extends to gun rights. Gun rights always seemed like a sacred cow. I’m opposed to guns in general. In my experience, a meaningful portion of the people who are drawn to guns are exactly the type of people you don’t want carrying guns. But the 2A exists, and the GOP has deployed scare tactics for decades alleging that the next Democrat elected to office is going to sweep guns from peoples’ homes and outlaw them. And now, we have a legal carrier, who never reached for, displayed, or brandished his legal weapon, blamed for his own murder because Trump’s goons are people without principle whose entire ethos revolves around saying what they think Trump wants to hear. - Flyin' Elvis'-Utah Chapter - Tuesday, Jan 27, 26 @ 11:42 am: Yeah, that’s the problem with zealotry. There’s always someone more extreme than you. Actually, to them, you’re the enemy. - Shytown - Tuesday, Jan 27, 26 @ 11:44 am: Leave it to the ISRA to try and twist what everyone with a working brain, legislators included, are pointing out about the Pretti situation and the utter undeniable hypocrisy of what everyone in the Trump administration has been saying re not bringing a gun to a protest, which is legal in Minnesota. Also, Rittenhouse anyone? If this happened during a protest under a Dem administration, they would be leading marches on the streets, guns and all blazing. - Archpundit - Tuesday, Jan 27, 26 @ 11:50 am: It’s unclear if Pretti was out protesting or went to get donuts and ended up in the middle of a DHS caravan or some combination. It’s kind of hard to distinguish given the constant presence of DHS all over. I could go to the store in the Twin Cities and be in the middle of a DHS caravan and a protest without any intention. If I know I’m going to a protest I personally won’t carry, but that’s not how life is divided up right now. - localgovhero - Tuesday, Jan 27, 26 @ 11:58 am: Hey, I know that they are hopping on it for their own interests, but good for ISRA. As a democrat, I never had a negative view on the Second Amendment. Just guns. Our firearm rights are grounded in the ability to overthrow and fend off a tyrannical/authoritarian government. *cough Feds in Minnesota, California, Chicago, etc.. Our firearm rights are not grounded in giving the uneducated, the mentally unstable, men wearing grunt style t-shirts, an unlimited ability to own military style equipment. - Socially DIstant Watcher - Tuesday, Jan 27, 26 @ 12:04 pm: I feel for ISRA. Their job is to feed a constituency that will vote Republican or stay home, and now that the Republican president had turned on their central tenet, they have to find a way to justify their hyper partisanship without criticising the party that creates them. Get used to it. Trump will eventually turn on everyone who supports him. He always has. His ego demands it - Excitable Boy - Tuesday, Jan 27, 26 @ 12:32 pm: - Leave it to the ISRA to try and twist what everyone with a working brain, legislators included, are pointing out - In what way are they twisting it? I’m not fan of the ISRA, but they’re pointing out exactly the hypocrisy you’re talking about. - Grandson of Man - Tuesday, Jan 27, 26 @ 12:44 pm: Can’t recall anyone in Illinois trying to ban responsible carry of firearms. The issue with many is the sale of deadly assault-style guns that are often used in mass shootings, and very large clips. “You cannot bring a firearm, loaded, with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want” Kyle Rittenhouse is the right’s hero. He and others were encouraged or thanked by law enforcement in Kenosha, essentially being deputized according to a video. - JS Mill - Tuesday, Jan 27, 26 @ 12:56 pm: First, I am waiting for comment by @Todd (I think that is the handle of our resident 2A poster) as I am very curious as to his thoughts. Second, labeling the maga leadership statements on carrying firearms as “hypocrisy” is really misunderstanding them and their intent. Maga followers? Yes, supporting this is hypocritical to their usual 2A devotion. But the leaders are authoritarian and not libertarian. Their timing is premature and now people are walking it back a bit, but going after weapons is part of the playbook. If only the magas paid attention in high school or read a history book. This move is inevitable once they fully establish control. The last thing an authoritarian regime wants is an armed citizenry. This is simply part of their process, history tells us. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jan 27, 26 @ 1:08 pm: ===I am waiting for comment by @Todd=== He’s responded. Much the same way as ISRA. - H-W - Tuesday, Jan 27, 26 @ 1:23 pm: === The association also commends Illinois General Assembly members who previously opposed the Second Amendment but now recognize the right to carry firearms outside the home. === That’s not even good snark. I am not sure anyone in the Legislature opposes the Second Amendment. Regulation is not opposition, except perhaps gun zealots who they have a right to use excessive force to neutralize perceived threats. === The Illinois State Rifle Association looks forward to collaborating with these legislators === So collaborate. Go ahead. After all, the Federal Government is actually taking away legally possessed guns. Stand up and be heard. When does the ISRA believe legal gun owners can have their weapons taken away? Say it openly. Collaborate. /s - Todd - Tuesday, Jan 27, 26 @ 1:26 pm: JS –Thanks for the thought. 1. Pretti had the right to be carrying. 2. he had the right to be where he was. NOT withstanding the AGs of Illinois and Minnesota filing in federal court saying there is no right to carry to a protest or political rally. Rich is correct on Illinois law, but it only pertains to permitted events. 3. he had the right carry the firearm that he had, despite it being banned for carry in Illinois. 4. the mags or threaded barrel matter not I have a carry gun very much like his and never carry without 3 mags min. I think the NYT article is bad for the feds as it lays it out. I think the scrum pile on aided to confusion about things. Those shots are not ones I would have reasonable taken due to the proximity of other officers trying to restrain him. The blur comes in when he stepped between the woman and the agent. As someone who carries, I would not be looking to put myself with a firearm, that often gets exposed due to my method and location of carry, around any officer that is in this type of amped up situation. I think he made a mistake. The shoot may be ruled justified based upon the totality, but not a good shoot. Anything else? - Norseman - Tuesday, Jan 27, 26 @ 1:59 pm: Like all things gun, NRA and their state version, ISRA, care little about rational policies on guns. Carrying guns during protests or just open carry in general can do nothing but lead to more deaths. These organizations don’t care about anything other than money. The only purpose of openly carrying guns at protests is to threaten with violence those with views opposite themselves. We can be amused by the MAGA hypocrisy of their arguments defending the violence and abuse of rights of Trump’s secret police. I only wish this was a real change of opinion on the danger of guns at protests. But the sad thing is that people will continue to die for the sake of the money people that influenced our governmental policies. - Jerry - Tuesday, Jan 27, 26 @ 2:12 pm: If we are to follow Clay Thomas precedent to look at the historical record. The only legal gun is a single shot musket AND owned by a white, male landowner. You also need to be part of the Militia. Thats it. Ay-Kay 47s arent legal. Werent around back then. The Constitution needs to be Amended to include them. Remember Republicans remind us all to obey the Constitution. Except when it doesnt suit their purpose. Look at the VA Nurse who was assassinated last week. That person is a terrorist and shouldnt be carrying a gun at a protest. No snark here. Just spilling the facts, per the Supreme Court and the Constitution of the United States of America. My Country. - Bud's Bar Stool - Tuesday, Jan 27, 26 @ 2:26 pm: === Also, Rittenhouse anyone? If this happened during a protest under a Dem administration, they would be leading marches on the streets, guns and all blazing. === The hypocrisy is breath taking. There is no good faith or intellectual continuity in the modern GOP; it’s all just purely impulsive and transactional. Trump today is doubling down: “You can’t walk in with guns,” Mr. Trump told reporters as he departed the White House for a speech in Iowa on Tuesday. “You can’t do that,” he added before calling Mr. Pretti’s death “a very unfortunate incident.” Walk in where, exactly? How exactly is protest even defined? Miller’s post includes a definition of protest that requires a local permit. That seems like a reasonable definition. That’s a protest in the conventional sense. But that is most definitely not the “protest” in Minneapolis. In fact, we’re seeing protests nearly every day there that defy any conventional definition. They’re happening spontaneously in neighborhoods and outside businesses and outside schools. The feds show up and people respond immediately. That “protest” is clearly not the one that is planned — where somebody can plan to leave their gun at home. The truth is that this is all nonsense to distract from the fact that federal agents killed a man they should not have killed - and then Noem, Miller and Bovino all made public conclusions entirely divorced from reality. What was even the justification for grabbing him? The fact that he tried to help a woman who had just been pepper sprayed point-blank in the face - and then put up his own hand up to block the pepper spray from his own face? How could that justify a federal agent tackling him to the ground - the act that precipitated his shooting death? Of course, it does not. - Todd - Tuesday, Jan 27, 26 @ 2:28 pm: @HW – “I am not sure anyone in the Legislature opposes the Second Amendment.” There are a number of legislators who would gladly erase the 2A from the constitution and if they treated the 1st as they do the 2nd we would have only the soap box, quill and printing press for free speech. the PICA act bans guns from .22s to the carry gun Pretti had on him. Look at the RIFL act and tell me that isn’t designed to make it impossible to sell guns in Illinois. I won’t speak for ISRA, but gun owners can have their firearms removed when they become a prohibited person. As for the “red flag” order or others I would say not until they have had a hearing in front of a judge with counsel and the right to challenge evidence, present evidence, bring witnesses confront witnesses. As is that all happens on the backside. More rights are afforded for losing a DL after a DUI arrest than gun owners in a red flag law. - Perrid - Tuesday, Jan 27, 26 @ 2:33 pm: I personally think guns raise tensions or risks in just about any scenario, every time you go out carrying you’re choosing to gamble. That being said the rest of the country is insane and insists it be legal, so him carrying is simply not justification to shoot him in the back as he’s being pinned to the ground. - Lee county Larry - Tuesday, Jan 27, 26 @ 2:33 pm: We have sacrificed numberless college students, elementary schoolers, parade-goers, movie-watchers, black Bible-studiers, and Jews attending temple on the 2nd Amendment Altar. For what? The idea being that an armed citizenry can prevent an authoritarian government from trampling on the people. We were told that the Second Amendment protects all the others. If that ain’t so, and it appears it isn’t, then we should revisit DC v Heller. Until then, your liberal friends should arm themselves. - Just a Random Guy - Tuesday, Jan 27, 26 @ 2:47 pm: = deadly assault-style guns that are often used in mass shootings= Just a reminder, handguns were used nearly 2 to 1 in mass shootings from 1982 to 2024. Don’t believe me? Google is your friend. They’re easier to carry, easier to conceal, easier to handle. I’m just saying. Lets try and stick with facts. - Excitable Boy - Tuesday, Jan 27, 26 @ 3:00 pm: - The blur comes in when he stepped between the woman and the agent. - It’s not such a blur when the agents had no right to confront her and put their hands on her in the first place. She wasn’t the target of their arrest and I believe is a citizen. Were Ruby Ridge and Waco blurry, too? - Bud's Bar Stool - Tuesday, Jan 27, 26 @ 3:11 pm: === It’s not such a blur when the agents had no right to confront her and put their hands on her in the first place. She wasn’t the target of their arrest and I believe is a citizen. === Absolutely. We are seeing these agents, time and again, pepper-spraying people point-blank in the face. People that by any reasonable definition pose no physical threat to the agents. They’re just there, so the agents spray them in the face. Or they might push or tackle them to the ground - we’re seeing that regularly, too. More than once in or near Chicago, we saw agents reach out the window of their moving vehicles and spray passersby. Or they’d lob tear gas canisters - as they were leaving the scene! There is no legitimate justification for any of that. They’re doing just because they can; they’re unaccountable. This is behavior that would not be tolerated from any other law enforcement agency. - JS Mill - Tuesday, Jan 27, 26 @ 3:34 pm: =Anything else?= Nope. I asked for your thoughts and appreciate that you shared them. I too have my CCL. Got it because I could. I have never actually carried, other than when hunting and then it is a shotgun. I do go shooting occasionally to stay sharp. Watching the video, I see no issue with his behavior. He did the christian thing (I have no idea if he is or not, but so many so called christian nationalists in this admin) and tried to help the woman up after she was illegally attacked. =Were Ruby Ridge and Waco blurry, too?= Now, you and I know that was different. /s - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jan 27, 26 @ 3:44 pm: ===pepper-spraying people point-blank in the face=== And people who are sprayed in the face cannot just remain still while they’re arrested. It’s impossible. Their bodies are naturally struggling to deal with a gas assault. - Todd - Tuesday, Jan 27, 26 @ 3:49 pm: EB – whether you believe they had the right or not, when he interjected himself, he began interfering with the action of a federal law enforcement officer. at that point it becomes about officer safety and compliance with orders. - JS Mill - Tuesday, Jan 27, 26 @ 4:05 pm: = he began interfering with the action of a federal law enforcement officer. at that point it becomes about officer safety and compliance with orders.= Factually false based on the video evidence. An ICE or CBP agent does not have a lawful duty or right to shove someone to the ground when that person does not present a danger to them, even if they are not following a directive. It is also not a standard law enforcement procedure. Picking someone up from the ground after an illegal attack is also not a violation of the law. The fact that a number of the alleged agents were plain clothes also adds to the issue. A reasonable person cannot assume that someone not in uniform (or costume in most of the cases) is a legal and sworn ICE or CBP agent/officer. So, no he was not interfering. - 2nd Amendment Follower - Tuesday, Jan 27, 26 @ 4:06 pm: Peaceful protester equals standing on the sidewalk not interfering with law enforcement. They can blow their whistle, yell, and film all they want. Agitator equals blocking traffic, throwing things at law enforcement, actively & physically interfering with law enforcement. The individual that got shot in my mind was in a grey area. From the video’s I watched he seemed to be filming and then directing traffic. When he was being detained by law enforcement, he seemed to be helping the woman that got knocked down. The investigation hopefully will shed some light with the ICE agents body cameras. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jan 27, 26 @ 4:08 pm: ===he seemed to be helping the woman that got knocked down=== A terrible crime. He must be disarmed and then shot multiple times. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jan 27, 26 @ 4:15 pm: ===at that point it becomes about officer safety and compliance with orders=== Fine. No need to shoot him after he’s been disarmed without him even touching his gun. There are no loopholes here deserving of this shoot. None. - Excitable Boy - Tuesday, Jan 27, 26 @ 4:23 pm: - he began interfering with the action of a federal law enforcement officer. - Yeah, those fellas you used to refer to as jack booted thugs until they started doing something you support. You’re just a hypocrite, nothing more. - Demoralized - Tuesday, Jan 27, 26 @ 4:30 pm: ==at that point it becomes about officer safety== At no point in that interaction was officer safety in question. The video doesn’t lie. Why people just can’t come out and say that this shooting was not justified is beyond me. - low level - Tuesday, Jan 27, 26 @ 5:38 pm: ==at that point it becomes about officer safety and compliance with orders.== No Todd. Had he drawn down on the ICE agents then I would agree with you but he never did and was disarmed. The “officers” (thugs) were never threatened. - Pundent - Tuesday, Jan 27, 26 @ 5:58 pm: =at that point it becomes about officer safety= Once Pretti posed no apparent threat (if he ever did) it becomes about homicide. - FormerParatrooper - Tuesday, Jan 27, 26 @ 7:29 pm: Pretti as far as I saw from what video evidence there is did not present a threat. We have not seen the body cam footage yet, but I doubt that would change anything. His carrying a firearm was his right. Apparently under the statutes there it was legal. I fully support a citizen’s right to carry lawfully and peacefully even when I disagree with some of their political leanings. - Socially DIstant Watcher - Tuesday, Jan 27, 26 @ 8:28 pm: I appreciate Todd stopping by to share his thoughts. He: (1) Immediately deflected to criticize Democrats (“NOT withstanding the AGs of Illinois and Minnesota” and “More rights are afforded for losing a DL after a DUI arrest than gun owners in a red flag law.”) (2) Defended the Trump administration (“The blur comes in…” and “when he interjected himself, he began interfering with the action of a federal law enforcement officer. at that point it becomes about officer safety and compliance with orders”) I also appreciate commenters who can say, cleanly and without weasel words, that this shooting was wrong. - Elmer Keith - Wednesday, Jan 28, 26 @ 7:28 am: “..provided they are acting lawfully.” That’s definitely a Richard Pearson vibe: “law abiding gun owners.” This from the ISRA, one of the sellout “gun rights” shills that pre-emptively gave Duty to Inform to the IL Chiefs of Police, after Vandermyde & NRA provided the DTI language for Phelps’ carry bill. TrackBack URI Anonymous commenters, uncivil comments, rumor-mongering, disinformation and profanity of any kind will be deleted. Name/Nickname - Required (required) E-mail - Not required (not required) URL - Not required