Here in Georgia, we used to have something called the “Public Gathering Clause.” It basically was a law that meant any public gathering was a place where you couldn’t carry a gun. It was in response to something called the Camilla Massacre, where racist whites killed black activists protesting the removal of black members of the General Assembly, then went home and got their own guns.
It effectively barred guns at protests of any kind, really, and that includes Second Amendment rallies, ironically enough.
In the wake of Alex Pretti being killed in Minneapolis, I’m sure a lot of people are going to be talking about guns at protests of various kinds for a while yet to come.
But Minnesota’s attorney general already made his opinion known on the topic.
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison previously argued that Americans have no Second Amendment right to carry firearms at political protests.
Ellison joined 16 other attorneys general from Democrat-led states in an amicus brief filed with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in January 2024, according to court records. The coalition argued states can ban firearms at political rallies and protests because such events attract violence.
The group also contended that guns at demonstrations could intimidate people and discourage them from speaking freely.
Ellison’s legal stance faced scrutiny Saturday when Border Patrol agents fatally shot Alex Pretti during an immigration enforcement operation in Minneapolis. The 37-year-old ICU nurse held a valid permit to carry and had no criminal record, Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara said.
The AGs of DC, IL, CT, DE, HI, MD, MA, MI, MN, NV, NJ, NY, OR, PA, RI, VT, and WA argued in 2024 that there’s no 2A right to carry guns at “events involving political speech, like political rallies and protests” because they are “often targets of violence” https://t.co/471u7bqPEi pic.twitter.com/bN5KHgMf4e
— Rob Romano (@2Aupdates) January 25, 2026
Rallies and protests aren’t actually targets of violence to any massive degree, unless we’re talking about riots and the like.
The fact that Pretti was carrying a gun when he was shot and was part of an anti-ICE protest effort–one that involved at least some people interfering with the operations taking place–has to put Ellison in an awkward position.
After all, he can’t suddenly pretend that Pretti was all in the right for being there when he’s previously argued that no one has a right to be armed at such an event.
There are ways around that awkwardness, to be sure, but it does shed a little light on the kind of people who seem to inhabit that side of the political sphere. It will also likely be used to hint that Pretti may have had some kind of ill intent. Frankly, I find that to be bogus, because even if he agreed with Ellison, the fact is that the law allowed it, and a lot of people will use laws they disagree with.
It’ll be interesting to see, though, if Minnesota lawmakers decide to try and pass a law barring guns at protests after this. I’ll oppose any such measure, but it would be consistent with their beliefs, at least if many of them share Ellison’s opinions on the matter, which they do.
However, I won’t hold my breath. They’d be loath to take a position that might hint Pretti did anything wrong.
Frankly, from what I can tell, he didn’t, but I’m looking for consistency from these people. I’m not going to hold my breath on that, either.
Editor’s Note: The mainstream media continues to lie about gun owners and the Second Amendment.
Help us continue to expose their left-wing bias by reading news you can trust. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your membership.
Read the full article here
