Pretti in Minneapolis

There is controversy over the shooting of Alex Pretti, in Minneapolis, on January 24th, over Pretti carrying a firearm and over subsequent statements by various individuals, including President Trump.  All of this is being interpreted in several ways, according to the person’s philosophical belief. 

Here are some thoughts on the legal right to carry (but not about the justification for the shooting.)

According to Chief Brian O'Hara of the Minneapolis Police Department, Pretti had a Minnesota state permit to carry a concealed handgun, and Pretti had no criminal record.  That permit would allow him to carry anywhere it was legal to carry.

Was carrying at the protest legal?  According to the US Concealed Carry Association, “Many states do not have specific laws targeting protests.”  Minnesota is one of the states that generally defaults to carrying being generally lawful at protests.

There may be location-specific restrictions that apply whether or not a protest is occurring.  For instance, one could not carry to a protest on school grounds.  That type of situation has not been mentioned, so it does not seem to be a case here.

It appears that it was lawful for Pretti to be carrying to the protest.

However, lawful carry can become illegal if you are violating another law at the same time, such as brandishing, threatening behavior, etc.  In other words, what happens at the protest can impact the legality of carrying there.  Pretti was obviously interfering with a federal law enforcement activity.  Did that make his carrying illegal?  That’s a complicated question for the courts to decide but one that should have been evaluated by Pretti before going to the protest.

Those would seem to be the facts about the legality of Pretti’s concealed carry.  Now the question is: should he have been carrying? Just because you can do something does not mean you should do something. 

If one intends to go to a protest to watch the protest and / or avoid direct confrontation with law enforcement, there will be various opinions.  We know protests can turn violent and the purpose of carrying is protection, so one can make a strong case for legally carrying in these circumstances.  Remember Kyle Rittenhouse had to legally protect himself against violent assault. 

If one intends to get in direct confrontation with law enforcement at a protest, whether physical or taunting, that is a different set of circumstances.  It’s obvious that Pretti was involved in both taunting and a physical confrontation.

When he went to the protest, did Pretti intend to get involved to that level?  What was his state of mind?  An incident eleven days before, on January 13th, gives us a strong clue.  At the protest of the 13th, Pretti is shown, in a video, swearing at law enforcement officers and then kicking out the tail light of a federal SUV.  He was then forcefully taken to the ground by multiple agents.  Pretti either breaks free or was released and he runs away.  Subsequent video of the confrontation shows Pretti with a handgun in his waistband but that was unknown to law enforcement, at that time.

Firearm trainers stress extreme caution when confronted by a law enforcement officer (LEO), whether it be a traffic stop or something more serious.  First, keep your hands away from the hand gun.  Second, tell the LEO you have a concealed carry permit and you are armed.  Third, tell the LEO where it is located.  That minimizes the possibility of a tragedy.  Pretti did none of that on the 13th or the 24th.

So, it is clear by Pretti’s actions on both the 13th and the 24th that he knew there was a serious possibility of a direct confrontation with law enforcement and that he intentionally carried.

If Pretti was going to a protest and not intending a confrontation with law enforcement, it’s legal to carry and a case can be made that carrying was a good thing.

If Pretti was going to a protest and at that protest intended to have a confrontation with law enforcement, carrying may or may not have been legal and it was definitely foreseeable that it was a bad idea.