No guns at protests, Trump says. Your rights explained

• A Border Patrol agent shot and killed Alex Pretti, a U.S. citizen, in Minneapolis on Jan. 24. The shooting came weeks after an ICE agent fatally shot 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good in the city.
• Trump administration officials questioned why Pretti had a gun if he didn't intend to cause harm, a departure from the administration's past advocacy for broad interpretations of the Second Amendment.
• The shooting highlights the tension that can exist between First and Second Amendment rights. Experts said advocates on all sides of the gun debate have found common ground in defending Pretti.

President Donald Trump twice on Jan. 27 questioned why 37-year-old Alex Pretti was carrying a gun at the time he was shot and killed by a Border Patrol agent in Minneapolis.

His administration has long advocated for a broad interpretation of the Second Amendment. But then came the Jan. 24 shooting that killed Pretti, which happened weeks after an Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer shot and killed 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good in the same city.  

Trump told reporters on Jan. 27 he didn’t believe Pretti was an “assassin” but questioned why he was armed.  

“You can’t have guns. You can’t walk in with guns. You can’t do that. It’s just a very unfortunate thing,” he said.  

At an event in Iowa on the same day, Trump reiterated that the shooting was "very unfortunate" but that, "I don't like that he had a gun."

It's a “pretty sharp flip-flop,” said Emma Brown, executive director of GIFFORDS, an organization headed by former U.S. Rep. Gabby Giffords that advocates for gun reform. 

But she and others said it’s also created a rare moment in which people on all sides of the gun debate have found common ground in criticizing suggestions that Pretti, a licensed gun owner, should not have been carrying one while interacting with law enforcement or attending a protest against the Trump administration's aggressive immigration enforcement operation.  

“I think that the tension isn’t between the First and Second Amendment as much as it is between the Trump administration and the Constitution in this moment,” Brown said. 

The Department of Justice referred USA TODAY to Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche's comments in news interviews on the matter.

He said there was "nothing wrong with anybody lawfully carrying firearms" on NBC's "Meet the Press" but added that "this was an incredibly split-second decision that had to be made" by law enforcement.

USA TODAY reached out to the Department of Homeland Security and the National Rifle Association for comment. 

Here’s what to know about the First and Second Amendment implications of the shooting: 

Was Pretti carrying a gun? Did he have the right to?  

Pretti was carrying a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun at the time of the incident, according to DHS. 

Videos of the shooting did not show Pretti wielding a gun in the moments before he was shot. He was shown holding his phone up to record law enforcement, which is protected under the First Amendment.  

A witness also didn’t see Pretti brandish the gun in front of law enforcement, according to a sworn statement filed in federal court. Minnesota law allows those with permits to carry guns in public and does not require them to be concealed.  

Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O'Hara said Pretti was "exercising his First Amendment rights to record law enforcement activity and also exercising his Second Amendment rights to lawfully be armed in a public space in the city." 

How did the Trump administration respond to the shooting?  

Some in Trump’s administration defended the agent, describing Pretti as a “domestic terrorist” who intended to kill law enforcement. Pretti’s family released a statement saying that was a lie and calling such comments “reprehensible and disgusting.” 

In an interview published in The Wall Street Journal on Jan. 25, Trump said he “(doesn’t) like any shooting.”  

"But I don’t like it when somebody goes into a protest and he’s got a very powerful, fully loaded gun with two magazines loaded up with bullets also,” Trump said. “That doesn’t play good either." 

The White House referred USA TODAY to White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt’s remarks in a Jan. 26 press briefing in which she said Trump “supports the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding, American citizens.” 

At the same time, Leavitt said, “Americans do not have a constitutional right to impede lawful immigration enforcement operations.” 

In the same briefing, Leavitt said Americans “of course” have First Amendment rights but reiterated the administration’s assertions that the exercise of such freedoms cannot impede federal operations.  

What have Second Amendment groups said?   

In a Jan. 24 X post, California Assistant U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli said, “If you approach law enforcement with a gun, there is a high likelihood they will be legally justified in shooting you.” 

The National Rifle Association, which has endorsed Trump in each of his presidential campaigns since 2016, said the remark was “dangerous and wrong.” The organization’s own X post called for officials to wait for the investigation to conclude instead of “making generalizations and demonizing law-abiding citizens.”  

Gun Owners of America also criticized the comment, saying “the Second Amendment protects Americans' right to bear arms while protesting – a right the federal government must not infringe upon.” 

In response to the organization's statement, Essayli wrote that he "never said it's legally justified to shoot law-abiding concealed carriers." He said his comment "addressed agitators approaching law enforcement with a gun and refusing to disarm."

By contrast, Trump’s first administration largely defended Kyle Rittenhouse, a then-teenager who brought an AR-15 rifle to a Wisconsin protest in which he ended up fatally shooting two people and injuring another in 2020. The administration characterized Rittenhouse’s actions as self-defense, and he was ultimately acquitted. 

Eric Tirschwell, executive director of Everytown Law, which works to increase gun safety through the legal system, said it is “completely inconsistent” to advocate for the right to publicly bear arms and also criticize a slain man for doing so.  

“What this really underscores is ... the across-the-board opposition to the chaos, the lies and the victim blaming that followed this tragic killing,” Tirschwell said. 

Who wants ban on guns at protests? 

Laws limiting locations where guns are permitted typically come from the state or local level, said Duke University law professor Joseph Blocher, who added that the extent to which the right to bear arms can be restricted is a “heavily litigated issue.”  

Constitutional rights can “go hand-in-hand,” he said, but the First and Second Amendments “have a particularly complicated relationship.”  

“Guns can be used, and have been used, to defend speakers and protesters and can also be used to silence them,” he said. 

More than two dozen states have laws making it illegal for people to bring long guns to political protests or state capitols, according to Everytown for Gun Safety. Minnesota is not on that list.  

The organization ranks the state 14th in the country for the strength of its gun laws, saying it has a relatively low rate of gun violence. 

Everytown did an 18-month long study that concluded in 2021 and found armed protests are “nearly six times as likely to turn violent or destructive.” 

Contributing: Joey Garrison and Marissa Payne

BrieAnna Frank is a First Amendment reporter at USA TODAY. Reach her at [email protected].

USA TODAY's coverage of First Amendment issues is funded through a collaboration between the Freedom Forum and Journalism Funding Partners. Funders do not provide editorial input.