The Trump administration wants to have it both ways on gun rights

Since immigration agents killed 37-year-old Alex Pretti during an altercation as he was lawfully carrying a firearm in Minneapolis on Saturday, President Donald Trump and some of his top officials have cast aspersions on common gun-carry practices. In social media posts and interviews, officials including FBI Director Kash Patel, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and even Treasury Secretary Scott Bessett have falsely argued that Pretti’s mere possession of a gun or an extra magazine was illegal or evidence of his nefarious intent.

Officials have argued that Pretti’s mere possession of a gun or an extra magazine was illegal or evidence of his nefarious intent.

The coordinated messages indicate that the administration believes that attacking Pretti’s gun carry is its best chance of justifying his killing to the public, but those talking points have already sparked backlash from some of Trump’s closest allies: gun-rights activists.

While the National Rifle Association and other groups have yet to comment on the claims made by those top Trump officials, they did criticize federal prosecutor Bill Essayli after he posted on social media, “If you approach law enforcement with a gun, there is a high likelihood they will be legally justified in shooting you.”

“This sentiment from the First Assistant U.S. Attorney for the Central District of California is dangerous and wrong,” the NRA posted in response. “Responsible public voices should be awaiting a full investigation, not making generalizations and demonizing law-abiding citizens.”

“We condemn the untoward comments of U.S. Attorney Bill Essayli,” Gun Owners of America said in a statement. “Federal agents are not ‘highly likely’ to be ‘legally justified’ in ‘shooting’ concealed carry licensees who approach while lawfully carrying a firearm. The Second Amendment protects Americans’ right to bear arms while protesting—a right the federal government must not infringe upon.”

This isn’t the first time the Trump administration has run into resistance from gun groups. After Justice Department officials anonymously floated the idea of a ban on transgender people owning guns, the groups uniformly pushed back against the idea, and it was dropped.

While campaigning in 2024, Trump called himself the “best friend gun owners have ever had in the White House,” but he had previously run afoul of gun-rights groups in his first term.

This isn’t the first time the Trump administration has run into resistance from gun groups.

After a teenage gunman killed 17 people and wounded 17 others at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, in 2018, Trump met with lawmakers of both parties at the White House and railed against Republicans, whom he described as being “petrified” of the NRA. He expressed interest in so-called red flag laws and numerous other gun-control proposals, and then-Vice President Mike Pence said red flag orders could “give families and give local law enforcement additional tools if an individual is reported to be a potential danger to themselves or others.”

Although Pence suggested allowing “due process so no one’s rights are trampled,” Trump interrupted and said, “Or, Mike, take the firearms first and then go to court.” He added, “Because, a lot of times, by the time you go to court, it takes so long to go to court, to get the due process procedures — I like taking the guns early.”

In 2019, after a gunman used an AR-15 rifle to kill 23 people and injure 22 others in an El Paso Walmart, Trump, according to The New York Times, asked, “What are we going to do about assault rifles?”

Trump eventually abandoned pursuit of red-flag laws and limits on assault-style rifles.

But there are gun restrictions he did follow through on. For example, after a man firing out of his Las Vegas hotel window during a music festival killed 58 people and caused more than 850 to be injured, Trump ordered the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to unilaterally implement a ban on bump stocks, a move the Trump-friendly Supreme Court later ruled unconstitutional.

Now, Trump and his top officials are asserting that the mere act of carrying a gun or extra magazines should cast Pretti’s actions in a nefarious light.

Trump eventually abandoned pursuit of red-flag laws and limits on assault-style rifles.

Does that mean gun voters will cross the aisle in the next election? Probably not. Most Democratic candidates aren’t making strides to woo gun voters anyway.

Despite the positions he’s taken that have upset them, gun-rights groups have been hesitant to criticize Trump directly, likely because he has delivered on several of their policy preferences. While his record is more mixed than he or his supporters often portray, he’s signed legislation and issued executive orders that have pleased gun-rights advocates. Additionally, his Supreme Court appointees enabled a 2022 landmark ruling that expanded recognition of gun-carry rights and established a new test for determining the constitutionality of firearms restrictions. His lower court appointments have also largely sided with gun-rights challengers.

In July, Trump’s omnibus bill included a tax cut on silencers and short-barrel rifles or shotguns. His Justice Department has often sparred with gun-rights groups over federal firearms laws, but that same DOJ has taken steps to challenge blue state gun restrictions.

Still, the administration’s media tour condemning lawful carry after immigration agents killed Pretti could end up fracturing Trump’s support among gun-rights advocates. Even if Democrats can’t persuade those advocates to vote for them, Trump and the Republicans may be sapping their motivation, which could affect turnout in the coming elections. To justify what Immigration and Customs Enforcement is doing, that appears to be a risk top Trump officials are willing to take.

The post The Trump administration wants to have it both ways on gun rights appeared first on MS NOW.

This article was originally published on ms.now