White House, ‘The View’ Spark Uproar: Who’s Betraying the Second Amendment?

Paul Riverbank, 1/27/2026A protester’s shooting sparks bipartisan uproar, reshaping America’s fierce Second Amendment conversation.

Pretti, a registered nurse whose family describes him as “quiet but stubbornly civic-minded,” was shot and killed by Border Patrol officers during a protest at the outskirts of Minneapolis. Details remain spotty, but here’s what we know: Pretti joined a small crowd filming a contentious immigration enforcement operation. After an altercation—pepper spray, a scuffle, a legally-owned handgun seized from his waistband—Pretti lay dead on the pavement. Officials claimed he carried no identification or gun permit. Minnesota law says that’s a civil matter, a fine at worst, not grounds for violence. Legal experts backed up the point, some describing the incident as “a deeply troubling reading of the law, or a lack thereof.”

What really jolted the usual public script was the reaction on daytime television. “We see now that the government lies to the American people, and they also flout the Second Amendment and Minnesota law,” Sunny Hostin remarked, her voice sharper than viewers are used to hearing. Whoopi Goldberg, not generally counted among the NRA’s defenders, repeated bluntly: “He was allowed to carry it.” Sara Haines, meanwhile, revisited the origins of the right to bear arms, calling it a protection “in case the government turned on the people.” Suddenly, the show’s so-called liberal set dug into the foundational roots of gun rights, triggering a rare moment of agreement that sidestepped the usual left-right bickering.

Meanwhile, Alyssa Farah Griffin summed up—perhaps for many—her surprise as official responses from Washington failed to directly acknowledge Second Amendment protections: “My jaw was on the floor.” In a political atmosphere allergic to ambiguity, those admissions felt seismic.

The White House didn’t exactly clarify matters. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, standing beneath the White House insignia, walked a careful line: “While Americans have a constitutional right to bear arms,” she intoned, “Americans do not have a constitutional right to impede lawful immigration enforcement operations.” She warned that carrying a gun near law enforcement can quickly escalate a situation. Still, in a subtle rebuke to more extreme voices inside the administration, Leavitt distanced President Trump from any suggestion that Pretti was a “domestic terrorist”—language that had already begun circulating among some senior officials.

Peel back to the statehouse, and change is no less rapid. In Virginia, Democrats freshly in control moved with decisive speed to pass a sweeping gun measure. The proposal bans a host of firearms and extras, and, notably, removes so-called “grandfather protections” for current owners; anyone caught in violation could spend up to a year in jail and face stiff fines. “I respect the Second Amendment, and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise,” Governor Abigail Spanberger insisted at the bill’s signing, even as gun owners and conservative commentators described the move as a direct assault. The usual conservative outlets erupted: “The radical left will stop at nothing to enact…gun control,” blared one Townhall headline, echoing a familiar but now more urgent refrain as some gun owners contemplated lawsuits or protests of their own.

The discord isn’t confined to the usual party theater, either. Within the Trump administration, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and FBI Director Kash Patel offered a strident view: bringing a firearm to any protest, they argued, is illegal. Outrage followed—why, gun advocates wondered, was this administration undermining basic constitutional rights? Dana Loesch, long a marquee voice for gun owners, zeroed in on the rhetoric, calling their stance “anti-Second Amendment statism.”

So, what does all this mean? The case of Alex Pretti has become something larger than its facts—at once a touchstone and a litmus test. Old alliances blur. People accustomed to debating the Second Amendment along party lines now find their deepest arguments strangely echoed by public figures they seldom agreed with before. There’s no clear path through the thicket yet. But today, few would deny that the right to bear arms is again at the center of a convulsive national reckoning—one that is reshaping political alliances, forcing unlikely conversations, and demanding another hard look at the balance between liberty and government power.

A fierce debate on the Second Amendment was already simmering this week — then the death of Alex Pretti in Minnesota poured gasoline on the fire. If you happened to catch “The View” recently, you might have noticed a distinctly different mood: hosts, typically critical of gun rights, sounding—if not exactly pro-Second Amendment—a good deal more uncertain.Pretti, a registered nurse whose family describes him as “quiet but stubbornly civic-minded,” was shot and killed by Border Patrol officers during a protest at the outskirts of Minneapolis. Details remain spotty, but here’s what we know: Pretti joined a small crowd filming a contentious immigration enforcement operation. After an altercation—pepper spray, a scuffle, a legally-owned handgun seized from his waistband—Pretti lay dead on the pavement. Officials claimed he carried no identification or gun permit. Minnesota law says that’s a civil matter, a fine at worst, not grounds for violence. Legal experts backed up the point, some describing the incident as “a deeply troubling reading of the law, or a lack thereof.”What really jolted the usual public script was the reaction on daytime television. “We see now that the government lies to the American people, and they also flout the Second Amendment and Minnesota law,” Sunny Hostin remarked, her voice sharper than viewers are used to hearing. Whoopi Goldberg, not generally counted among the NRA’s defenders, repeated bluntly: “He was allowed to carry it.” Sara Haines, meanwhile, revisited the origins of the right to bear arms, calling it a protection “in case the government turned on the people.” Suddenly, the show’s so-called liberal set dug into the foundational roots of gun rights, triggering a rare moment of agreement that sidestepped the usual left-right bickering.Meanwhile, Alyssa Farah Griffin summed up—perhaps for many—her surprise as official responses from Washington failed to directly acknowledge Second Amendment protections: “My jaw was on the floor.” In a political atmosphere allergic to ambiguity, those admissions felt seismic.The White House didn’t exactly clarify matters. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, standing beneath the White House insignia, walked a careful line: “While Americans have a constitutional right to bear arms,” she intoned, “Americans do not have a constitutional right to impede lawful immigration enforcement operations.” She warned that carrying a gun near law enforcement can quickly escalate a situation. Still, in a subtle rebuke to more extreme voices inside the administration, Leavitt distanced President Trump from any suggestion that Pretti was a “domestic terrorist”—language that had already begun circulating among some senior officials.Peel back to the statehouse, and change is no less rapid. In Virginia, Democrats freshly in control moved with decisive speed to pass a sweeping gun measure. The proposal bans a host of firearms and extras, and, notably, removes so-called “grandfather protections” for current owners; anyone caught in violation could spend up to a year in jail and face stiff fines. “I respect the Second Amendment, and don’t let anyone tell you otherwise,” Governor Abigail Spanberger insisted at the bill’s signing, even as gun owners and conservative commentators described the move as a direct assault. The usual conservative outlets erupted: “The radical left will stop at nothing to enact…gun control,” blared one Townhall headline, echoing a familiar but now more urgent refrain as some gun owners contemplated lawsuits or protests of their own.The discord isn’t confined to the usual party theater, either. Within the Trump administration, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and FBI Director Kash Patel offered a strident view: bringing a firearm to any protest, they argued, is illegal. Outrage followed—why, gun advocates wondered, was this administration undermining basic constitutional rights? Dana Loesch, long a marquee voice for gun owners, zeroed in on the rhetoric, calling their stance “anti-Second Amendment statism.”So, what does all this mean? The case of Alex Pretti has become something larger than its facts—at once a touchstone and a litmus test. Old alliances blur. People accustomed to debating the Second Amendment along party lines now find their deepest arguments strangely echoed by public figures they seldom agreed with before. There’s no clear path through the thicket yet. But today, few would deny that the right to bear arms is again at the center of a convulsive national reckoning—one that is reshaping political alliances, forcing unlikely conversations, and demanding another hard look at the balance between liberty and government power.