In the hours after Alex Pretti was shot and killed by Customs and Border Patrol agents in Minneapolis, a number of Democrats and gun control organizations took the unusual step of arguing that the concealed carry holder was just exercising his First and Second Amendment rights; even politicians like California Gov. Gavin Newsom, who signed legislation prohibiting lawful concealed carry at protests and public assemblies less than four years ago.
For Newsom and professional gun grabbers, their newfound talking points are clearly meant solely to bash the Trump administration, not a sign of any sudden respect for the right to keep and bear arms. If Pretti had been shot and killed in a red state, at the scene of an ATF operation targeting "unlicensed gun dealers," or under a Democrat administration these same folks would be pointing their fingers at Pretti and proclaiming that lawfully carrying a gun is a bad idea that puts the gun owner at risk. Their recent comments are based purely on political expediency, not an ideological adjustment.
But what about those on the left who aren't financially invested in eradicating the right to bear arms?
At The Atlantic, for instance, Tyler Austin Harper called Pretti's death a "Second Amendment wake up call" for Americans across the political spectrum.
It is not yet clear what exactly Pretti’s own views were, or what motivated him to be on that Minneapolis street. But he knew what the Second Amendment is for: to affirm that Americans are a free people, and free people will not be cowed by masked federal agents. As this country’s gun enthusiasts have long known, freedom means little if you lack the means to keep it. Without the Second Amendment, the Constitution is a bit of parchment. With the Second Amendment, the Constitution is a demand. These rights shall not be infringed.
On Reddit (yeah, I know), a number of self-proclaimed liberal gun owners have argued and/or wished that Pretti's shooting should spark Democrat politicians to rethink their anti-2A positions... if for no other reason than to give liberals the ability to arm up against the threat they perceive coming from the right. As one Virginian put it:
Yes, liberals have recently gotten into guns, but there is a huge difference between one Reasonable Randy who has one rifle and 10 MAGA Mikes who have 5 to 10 various AR-15s and enough 30 round standard capacity magazines to hand out to all of his buddies if they for some reason haven’t also been stockpiling weapons, ammunition, and magazines for the past 10 to 20 years.
If I was a right wing fascist in the commonwealth, I would be giddy over HB 217. Imagine knowing you have a weapons cache big enough to last you a lifetime and your opposition is extremely limited in what they can legally acquire.
I hate to break it to that gun owner, but there's been no sign of any change of heart among the Democrats now in control of the Virginia legislature. In fact, as I reported earlier today, the state Senate's version of an "assault firearm" ban and prohibition on "large capacity" magazines has now been amended to remove the grandfather clause for those who currently possess magazines that can hold more than ten rounds. Several Democrats on the Courts of Justice committee referenced Pretti's shooting, but only to support banning "weapons of war"... oddly, while exempting police from the gun ban.
I think it's quite likely that some voters on the left are coming to the realization that the right to keep and bear arms is worth protecting (and exercising). In fact, I think that's been happening for several years now. Translating that into any kind of policy shift among the Democrat party, though is going to be incredibly difficult.
In recent years, polling suggests that about 20% of self-identified Democrats prioritize protecting the Second Amendment over adopting new gun laws. There would need to be a massive shift in those numbers before Democrat politicians felt pressure to moderate their views, much less adopt a true pro-Second Amendment stance. The gun control lobby would fight that tooth and nail, and any Democrat politician who decided that gun and magazine bans are a bad idea, or that "gun-free zones" empower violent actors at the expense of our right to self-defense would be cut off from the tens of millions of dollars the gun control lobby spends in support of anti-2A candidates; both in direct contributions and independent expenditures.
While some Democrat politicians like Newsom will claim to be Second Amendment supporters, they're never going to back up those claims with any action in defense of our right to keep and bear arms. And unless or until scores of liberal gun owners become single issue voters, politicians on the left face no real pressure to change their stance on gun control or the Second Amendment. I'd love to see it happen, but I'm not holding my breath.
