Trump Enforcers Reject Second Amendment After Minneapolis Shooting

As Democrats continue to organize groups of agitators bent on disrupting federal efforts to apprehend and deport those who have violated the sovereignty of America’s borders, it is becoming clear that more and more on the left are arming themselves in preparation for violent confrontations with law enforcement. This dangerous disposition is becoming increasingly prevalent as leftists brag about turning Second Amendment tables on conservatives without realizing that our motivations could not be further at odds. It is also cause for concern as it seems many within the Trump “best people” inner circle have used it as an excuse to speak out against gun owners carrying in public, with comments so incongruent to this administration’s stated stance on gun rights that one might think the remarks came from Obama himself. 

Why do conservatives take issue with Democrats exercising their Second Amendment rights? 

The simple answer is that we don’t, but as cries of hypocrisy litter social and mainstream media, it is time someone points out that there is a real difference between our motivations and intent. For years, conservative gun owners have espoused the principles of responsible firearms ownership, whether for sporting purposes or home and self-defense. When we discuss the real reason for the Second Amendment as the Founders intended, providing the means for citizens to defend against a government gone tyrannical, the discussion is often met with scoffs of derision from the left, either mocking the idea that the government would ever deteriorate to that state, or making fun of the notion that citizens would ever stand a chance in such a conflict. I can even remember when California Representative Eric Swalwell thought it prudent to tell a United States veteran that any such confrontation would be short-lived for Americans because the government has nuclear weapons at its disposal, “And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes,” said Swalwell in his 2018 Twitter post, ostensibly bragging about using weapons of mass destruction against the American people. This traitor (my opinion) is still a member of Congress. Let that sink in.

Why is it then that the left has now decided that such tyranny can and does exist? It’s an abrubt about face if I’ve ever seen one, but it follows a familiar pattern of behavior. In their utter lack of integrity, Democrats only need to disagree with a position before hitting the reset button and changing all the rules. If you don’t agree with Black Lives Matter burning down cities across America, they say it’s because you’re a racist. If you don’t like the idea of biological men beating up women in sports, then you’re transphobic, even though the use of that term is a misnomer, as not a one of us fears anyone in the trans community. 

Now that fraud and violence have become rampant due to a disastrous four years of Biden’s open borders policy, we must work to reverse the negative effects of this invasion by returning people who are here illegally to whence they came, and this push to restore law and order is exactly what has Democrats outraged today and screaming tyranny. To be clear, maintaining law and order while standing firm against an illegal invasion, fraud, and violence committed against American citizens is not what the Founders meant by tyranny, and challenging law enforcement as they are doing this difficult job is certainly not why conservatives carry guns. 

Therein lies the disconnect, and I refuse to play dumb about it as do the talking heads on television. It isn’t that we don’t respect your Second Amendment rights. We do, and we’ve been trying to preach them to you for years while you’ve been trying to take them from us for longer. We simply don’t respect your intent, which is to break the law, cause disruptions, interfere with law enforcement, block our roads and highways, cause utter chaos and destruction, rob the taxpayer blind, and then claim self-defense when you get in trouble. 

Make no mistake, Democrats are using the Second Amendment much like the American Communist Party perverts the First Amendment, neither of which provides the right to commit treason by way of overthrowing our Constitution Republic or threatening people when you don’t get your way. In fact, the government is responsible for protecting and defending our nation from lawlessness and invasion, a duty of the highest order with significance beyond a simple yet undeniable fiduciary obligation to American citizens. That said, the mission undertaken by law enforcement at this time is well within the scope of their duties, and any obstruction of these legal activities not only constitutes criminal behavior but also robs American taxpayers of the services they work hard for and are entitled to. Stop breaking the law!

As you can see, the conservative position, as I have laid it out, is consistent. It is congruent with our values and applies to all Americans at all times, while the left’s principles ebb and flow on a whim to justify their crimes and forward their anti-American agenda. The hypocrisy is clear, and it is a staple of the Democratic Party. 

Foot, meet mouth.

In the aftermath of the fatal shooting of Alex Pretti on January 24 by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, I would have thought the most offensive prevailing rhetoric would belong to the left, but that isn’t the case. I’m not saying it is coming from real conservatives either, as the drivel has sprouted forth from the mouths of duplicitous figures I would never dare associate my American values with. In a million years, I would never have bet that the liberal ladies of The View would sound like more patriotic supporters of the Second Amendment than a Republican administration. Despite the fact that I know their motives are of a nefarious nature, I’m happy I never made that bet, because I would have lost.

Kash Patel

Let’s start with Kash Patel, the featured speaker at the 2024 inaugural GOALS conference, hosted by Gun Owners of America (GOA), and applauded by the gun-rights advocacy group for his confirmation as FBI Director in February 2025. “Kash Patel’s confirmation is a massive win for gun owners across America. Unlike his predecessors, he understands that the FBI must serve the American people—not act as a political weapon against them. We look forward to seeing Director Patel restore integrity to the Bureau while standing firm in defense of our Second Amendment rights,” said Tim Macy, Chairman of GOA. 

“For years, we’ve watched the FBI trample on the rights of law-abiding gun owners who the Biden Administration designated as ‘Militia Violent Extremists’ for their belief in the Bill of Rights and use of patriotic imagery like the Gadsden Flag. Kash Patel has made it clear that those days are over. He is a true constitutionalist, and we are confident that he will work to rein in the agency’s abuses and ensure the FBI upholds, rather than undermines, the Second Amendment,” according to Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of GOA.

This is a mountain of praise for a guy that most of us have hardly ever heard of before we were asked to support his confirmation to one of the highest law enforcement positions in the land, and I’m not one to jump in bed over lip service, especially when you come to me hat in hand on our first encounter. Is there any evidence that Kash Patel defended the Second Amendment before needing our support? What is his personal history as a gun owner? Did he shoot .22 LR rifles as a youth? When and what was his first gun purchase? Does he collect guns? Has he ever or does he own an AR-15? What do we really know about Kash Patel as a gun owner prior to his ascent into MAGA politics? 

It’s been just shy of a year since that confirmation, so it’s time to check back in and see if the President’s Kash is where his mouth used to be.“You cannot bring a firearm, loaded, with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want. It's that simple. You don't have that right to break the law and incite violence,” Patel told Fox News. Trump has the votes, and Kash is confirmed. They no longer need us, but I can’t let this guy off the hook when he doesn't sound like any genuine supporter of the Second Amendment I’ve ever spoken to.

Let’s start by noting that Kash is wrong multiple times. Minnesota, like many other states, has no law prohibiting a concealed carry permit holder from carrying a firearm at a demonstration or protest. The presence of Pretti’s firearm was in no way a violation of the law, as he was permitted to carry his gun. Even if there were a law prohibiting concealed carry at such events, the real criminals would be the legislators who created a law in violation of the Second Amendment, and the law enforcement and judicial subversives who enforce it. 

When it comes to inciting violence, I will agree that the action of impeding law enforcement in the line of duty while blocking public roadways and obstructing justice could be construed as incitement, especially when putting yourself between a federal officer and another agitator whom they are trying to clear from the road. If protestors do not gather peacefully and do not obey lawful orders, it stands to reason they may ultimately invite physical force from ICE agents seeking to maintain authority over their area of investigation. This has nothing to do with an American citizen who exercises their Second Amendment right to bear arms, as neither the presence of the firearm nor extra magazines constitutes incitement short of being brandished or displayed in a threatening manner. 

By the way, depending on the gun, wardrobe, and where I intend to go, I carry anywhere from one to three spare magazines for my firearm at any given time, and I know this to be true of many who carry on a daily basis. For your real take on the Second Amendment, Kash, I declare you the biggest loser, but don’t worry, you’ve got company.

Scott Bessent

“I am sorry this gentleman is dead, but he did bring a 9mm semi-automatic weapon with two cartridges to what was supposed to be a peaceful protest… I’ve been to a protest. Guess what? I didn’t bring a gun, I brought a billboard,” said the Secretary of the Treasury and Trump “best people” appointee, Scott Bessent.

I’ll keep the laughter to a minimum on the “two cartridges” nomenclature since we already know these empty suits are just about as empty up top when it comes to any knowledge of firearms, but I digress. Bessent didn’t even realize that he touched on the real problem in his own statement, only to come off sounding stupid for blaming it on the gun. He’s right that this was “supposed to be a peaceful protest,” but it wasn’t, and it rarely is with the left, and there’s the problem. Had Pretti and the others stayed out of the way and protested from the sidewalk without approaching ICE officers or obstructing roadways, his lawfully concealed firearm would never have been cause for concern or even notice. 

Kristi Noem

“I don't know of any peaceful protester that shows up with a gun and ammunition rather than a sign,” said Kristi Noem, United States Secretary of Homeland Security. With this remark, Noem ties for the runner-up position as the anti-Second Amendment subversive of the day, alongside her previously mentioned cohorts. 

I know and have personally attended peaceful gatherings for conservative causes (as conservatives do) on multiple occasions while carrying a concealed handgun and several spare magazines. The difference is that I do so knowing full well that I may need to defend myself or others in the event of violent attacks from the left, for which they have a reputation. Fortunately, these types of people typically don’t dare to spread their filth to the neighborhoods I choose to live in, which may prove to be an occupational hazard if they did. I know, I know. I’m only one example. 

“I have attended protest rallies while armed, and no one got injured,” said GOA’s Erich Pratt on CNN. State Representative Jeremy Faison, who leads Tennessee’s GOP caucus, added some patriotism to the conversation, recognizing that perhaps the two most important rights enumerated in the United States Constitution are the freedoms of expression and gathering, and the freedom to defend those rights. "Showing up at a protest is very American. Showing up with a weapon is very American," Faison said on X.

Donald Trump: A top-down issue.

Face it. The buck stops with one man, and I’m sure he’ll let you know it. President Trump ran for office on promises to the American people, much like any politician, and much like the swamp he claims to detest, he abandoned his word once he got what he wanted. For that reason, the President himself wins the anti-Second Amendment subversive award today, which works out for him as he loves being credited above all else. 

If the watering down of our efforts to completely remove silencers, short-barreled firearms, and AOWs during the reconciliation process wasn’t enough, the Trump administration is now defending the National Firearms Act (NFA) of 1934 by challenging the Big Beautiful Lawsuit, a legal effort by Silencer Shop, Silencer Shop Foundation, GOA,  B&T USA, SilencerCo, Palmetto State Armory (PSA), and Firearms Regulatory Accountability Coalition (FRAC) to address Supreme Court precedent that states a tax is not valid or legal if it does not generate revenue. For those who still think President Trump is pro-Second Amendment, it’s time to come out from under that rock, read my latest update on the lawsuit, One Big Beautiful Update, Part 1, and adjust accordingly. That debate is over. 

I’m not even sure why it has taken so long to settle the argument. President Trump has been telling us how he feels for a long time, from his years as a New York Democrat sweetheart to his appointment of red-flag enthusiast and now United States Attorney General, Pam Bondi. Who remembers President Trump’s embarrassing 2019 interview with Piers Morgan? Allow me to refresh your memory. When asked about his view on silencers and whether they should be banned in the wake of the Virginia Beach shooting, in which one was used, here’s how Trump responded.

“I don't like it… Well, I’d like to think about it… No one's talking about silencers very much. They did talk about the bump stock and we had it banned. And we're looking at that. I’m going to seriously look at it,” Trump said to Morgan during the interview.

When he said, “They did talk about the bump stock,” I have to wonder who the “they” is that he seems to be taking his marching orders from. It certainly wasn’t anyone in the Second Amendment community, at least nobody credible, cough-NRA-cough.

The President, however, isn’t finished letting the Second Amendment community know what he really thinks of us. In fact, perhaps it is the boss's rhetoric that has permeated the underlings. “I don't like that he had a gun. I don't like that he had two fully loaded magazines. That's a lot of bad stuff,” President Trump said to reporters after the Alex Pretti shooting.

How could you possibly say that and still claim allegiance to millions of conservatives who voted for you based on the promises and the principles you committed yourself to espousing while asking for our votes? What happened to blaming the criminals, not the guns? Perhaps Pete Townshend said it best in 1971, "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.”

Turning the blame on firearms and those who exercise their rights is a .gov pastime. The practice has been around longer than fleecing Americans for taxes only to ship our hard-earned money off to countries that hate us and provide nothing in return other than helping to embezzle that money right back into the pockets of our politicians. Other than insider trading, how do you think these public servant salaries turn into untold millions? That’s right, we know, but it’s adorable that the government thinks we don’t. Keep underestimating Americans, and you’ll never see the chickens come home to roost until they’ve occupied your living room.  

Final thoughts.

I’m glad we don’t have another four years of Joe Biden, and I’m certainly thrilled not to see Kamala Harris at the helm, but we can’t set the bar that low. I understand that there’s no crystal ball and confess that I favored Trump among the realistic options in the last three general elections, although he was not my choice in the 2016 primary. 

As a community, we will fail if we divide ourselves among political idols when our commitment should instead be to America’s Founding values, and we need to collectively reject any man or woman seeking a position of leadership within our great nation who does not demonstrate that same commitment. I’m positive that this simple notion is something we can all agree upon; however, our ability to act in unison is severely hindered when swaths of individuals choose to devote their loyalty to a politician rather than their principles, especially in light of so many indicators telling us that we are being lied to. 

Remember all of this in three years when they tell us to vote for JD Vance, who sold us down the river when he chose not to stand up to the Senate Parliamentarian as she stripped Hearing Protection and SHORT Act provisions from the One Big Beautiful Bill, turning it into nothing more than a big betrayal. Also, remember that neither the office of the Vice President nor the President himself came down on Senate Majority Leader John Thune to fire or overrule the Parliamentarian. The bottom line is that our current leadership believes the Second Amendment community exists to serve them when they need the votes, but it is our responsibility to send candidates the message early on that they serve our will, and that any less will see them to the unemployment line. MAGA!

Darwin Nercesian is a long-time gun rights advocate and shooter of targets far, far away. As the News Field Editor at Firearms News, Darwin writes about the Second Amendment, firearms, and related gear. Follow him on Instagram, X, and YouTube @DTOE_Official.

---