The killing of Alex Pretti should force us to confront uncomfortable truths about who we defend, and why
The shooting death of Alex Pretti by federal agents in Minneapolis has ignited a firestorm within the gun rights community—and for once, the major organizations got it right. The NRA, Gun Owners of America, and other groups immediately called for an independent investigation and defended Pretti’s right to carry. They pushed back against Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and Border Patrol officials who absurdly claimed that legally carrying a handgun at a protest proved intent to harm federal agents.
But here’s the uncomfortable question we need to ask ourselves: Why did it take until 2026 for the NRA to defend a legal gun owner killed by law enforcement with this kind of vigor?
The Ghost of Philando Castile
Nearly a decade ago, in July 2016, Philando Castile was shot five times and killed by a police officer in St. Anthony, Minnesota. Castile had a permit. He disclosed his firearm to the officer. He did everything right. And he was killed in front of his girlfriend and her four-year-old daughter before he could even reach for his ID.
The NRA’s response? A tepid statement two days later that didn’t even use Castile’s name. When the officer was acquitted of manslaughter the following year, the nation’s most powerful gun rights organization—the one that claimed to defend every American’s right to carry—said nothing.
Other groups did better. The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus and Second Amendment Foundation both spoke out, calling Castile’s death “troubling” and “a tragedy.” Bryan Strawser, chair of the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus, put it simply: “We made a statement because it was the right thing to do. There was a core moral issue.”
So what changed between 2016 and 2026? Why does Alex Pretti get the full-throated defense that Philando Castile never received?
The Inconvenient Answer
Let’s not dance around it: Race matters. Philando Castile was Black. Alex Pretti was white. As Glenda Hatchett, who represented Castile’s family, asked pointedly: “If Philando had been white in the suburbs of Minneapolis, would they have said something?”
The silence speaks volumes. For years, the gun rights movement has proclaimed that the Second Amendment is for everyone, that it’s the great equalizer, that an armed society is a polite society. We’ve said that the right to keep and bear arms transcends race, class, and politics.
But when it mattered—when a legal Black gun owner was killed for doing exactly what we tell every concealed carrier to do—most of the movement went quiet.
This hypocrisy undermines everything we claim to stand for. If we only defend gun owners who look like us, vote like us, or live where we live, then we’re not defending rights—we’re defending a tribe. And rights don’t work that way.
The Federal Overreach No One Wanted to Discuss
The situation in Minneapolis has exposed another uncomfortable reality: the gun rights movement’s relationship with law enforcement is complicated, inconsistent, and often politically convenient.
Operation Metro Surge has become a constitutional nightmare. Federal agents are allegedly entering homes without warrants, detaining people based on appearance, killing U.S. citizens for noncompliance, and intimidating journalists. These are the kinds of “jack-booted government thugs” that Wayne LaPierre warned about in the 1990s—except now they’re operating under a Republican administration.
And here’s where it gets messy for us.
For decades, gun rights groups have sold a narrative: The Second Amendment exists as the ultimate check against tyranny. We’ve fundraised on it, we’ve organized around it, we’ve told millions of gun owners that their AR-15s are the last line of defense against a tyrannical government.
But what tyranny were we really preparing for?
The answer, if we’re honest, is a very specific kind: Democratic tyranny. Federal overreach was only terrifying when Democrats were in charge. When President Obama ordered a military training exercise in the Southwest, conservative commentators warned of martial law and gun confiscation. Texas deployed the State Guard to monitor the feds.
But when ICE and Border Patrol conduct what amounts to a military occupation of an American city under a Republican administration—complete with warrantless home invasions, extrajudicial killings, and defiance of federal court orders—where’s the alarm? Where are the militias mobilizing to defend the Constitution? Where are the dire fundraising emails about tyranny?
The Reckoning We Asked For
An internal ICE memo leaked at the end of 2025 revealed the agency’s “wartime recruitment” strategy, seeking candidates interested in “gun rights organizations” and “tactical gear brands.” In other words, they’re recruiting from us.
For years, the gun industry has sold military-style weapons with marketing that blurred the line between soldier and civilian. “As close as you can get without enlisting.” “Any mission, any condition, any foes, at any range.” We created a culture of “couch commandos” who bought tactical gear and trained for a fight against tyranny.
Now that fight is here—except it’s not what we imagined. The tyranny isn’t a Democrat trying to pass universal background checks. It’s federal agents killing American citizens for legally carrying firearms at protests. It’s warrantless raids. It’s the government telling legally armed citizens they can’t bring guns to demonstrations, despite decades of settled law in Minnesota and elsewhere.
And the “patriots” we cultivated? Some of them are now wearing ICE badges.
What We Owe the Second Amendment
If the gun rights movement is going to have any moral credibility, we need to defend every legal gun owner with the same energy—regardless of their race, politics, or whether defending them is politically convenient.
We owe Philando Castile an apology. We owe every Black, brown, and minority gun owner who watched the movement stay silent while one of their own was killed for exercising his rights.
And we owe ourselves some hard truths: The Second Amendment isn’t a partisan weapon. It’s not a shield for authoritarianism when our preferred party is in power. And if we only care about constitutional rights when they’re being violated by the other team, then we don’t actually care about rights at all.
Alex Pretti deserves justice. So did Philando Castile. The fact that one got a movement’s full support and the other didn’t should shame us all.
The gun rights movement has spent decades preparing for a confrontation with tyranny. Well, it’s here. The question is whether we have the courage to recognize it—even when it doesn’t fit our preferred narrative.
Sources
- The Guardian: “Pro-gun groups quickly rallied for Alex Pretti. Why didn’t they do the same for a Black gun owner?” February 4, 2026. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/04/alex-pretti-philando-castile-pro-gun-groups
- CT Post: “ICE and Border Patrol in Minnesota − accused of violating 1st, 2nd, 4th and 10th amendment rights − are testing whether the Constitution can survive.” https://www.ctpost.com/news/article/ice-and-border-patrol-in-minnesota-accused-of-21333162.php
- Mother Jones: “Minneapolis Is the Violent Reckoning the Gun Rights Movement Has Long Wanted.” February 2026. https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2026/02/minneapolis-ice-cbp-nra-alex-pretti-renee-good-guns-second-amendment/