The National Rifle Association (NRA) has aligned with pro-gun lobbying organisations, typically supportive of Donald Trump, to demand a comprehensive investigation into the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti. The 37-year-old nurse was killed by federal immigration officials in Minneapolis last Saturday, sparking a national debate over gun rights and law enforcement conduct.
Mounting Pressure for Transparency
Calls are intensifying for the Trump administration to conduct a thorough inquiry into Pretti's death. Reports indicate that Pretti was legally permitted to carry a firearm as a US citizen, exercising his constitutional right to bear arms. Widely circulated video footage of the incident does not show Pretti holding a gun at any point. Instead, it depicts an officer reaching towards Pretti's lower back and stepping away with what appears to be a pistol, followed by Pretti being shot.
NRA Enters the Fray
The NRA intervened in the national dialogue after Bill Essayli, appointed by Trump to temporarily serve as a US attorney in California in 2025, posted on social media. Essayli stated, "If you approach law enforcement with a gun, there is a high likelihood they will be legally justified in shooting you." In response, the NRA criticised this sentiment, labelling it as dangerous and incorrect. The organisation emphasised that responsible public figures should await a full investigation rather than making broad generalisations that demonise law-abiding citizens.
Gun Groups Unite in Criticism
Gun Owners of America, a non-profit lobbying group, also condemned Essayli's remarks. The organisation argued that federal agents are not highly likely to be legally justified in shooting concealed carry licensees who approach while lawfully carrying a firearm. They highlighted that the Second Amendment protects Americans' right to bear arms during protests, a right that the federal government must not infringe upon.
Political Reactions and Counterclaims
California Governor Gavin Newsom's press office responded to the NRA's criticism of Essayli, noting on social media that even the NRA believes Trump's justice department appointee in California has gone too far. Newsom's office added that Essayli's position is truly horrible when even the NRA calls him out. Essayli countered, claiming his words were mischaracterised and that he meant agitators approaching law enforcement with a gun and refusing to disarm risked justifiable shooting by officers.
Constitutional Debates Intensify
Essayli's post received a community note on X, referencing the US Constitution. The note stated that officers are prohibited from shooting citizens merely for possessing a weapon that is not an imminent threat. It alluded to the Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure and the 14th Amendment rights to equal protection under the law. Former NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch, generally supportive of Trump, also challenged Essayli, questioning whether mere legal possession of a gun near law enforcement merits a use-of-force response.
Witness Testimonies and Evidence
Witnesses provided sworn testimonies asserting that Pretti was not brandishing a gun when federal immigration officers descended on him. These statements align with publicly available video evidence and contradict the Trump administration's claims that the officers' shots were defensive. Governor Newsom's office called for a criminal investigation to ensure the public fully understands the events and maintains confidence in the rule of law.
Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus Weighs In
The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus issued a similar demand for a full and transparent investigation by state and federal authorities. They emphasised that no evidence has been produced indicating an intent to harm the officers. The caucus stressed that every peaceable Minnesotan has the right to keep and bear arms, including during protests or while exercising First Amendment rights to assemble peacefully. These rights, they noted, must be respected and protected at all times, even when someone is lawfully armed.
Broader Political Context
During his 2024 campaign for a second presidency, Trump warned audiences that their guns would be confiscated if he lost to election rival Kamala Harris. He claimed to be the protector of gun rights and boasted about receiving endorsements from every gun group, including the NRA. Harris later stated in a debate that she was not taking anybody's guns away, but the NRA responded with a statement supporting Trump's assertion that Harris backed gun confiscation.
This incident underscores ongoing tensions between gun rights advocates and law enforcement policies, highlighting the need for clarity and accountability in cases involving armed citizens.
