Minnesota Gun Law Contradicts Patel’s Recent Statements

Minnesota Gun Laws at Center of Controversy Following Immigration Protest Death

Minnesota’s gun laws have come under scrutiny following FBI Director Kash Patel’s inaccurate claim about firearms at protests in the aftermath of Alex Pretti’s death during an immigration demonstration in Minneapolis.

Contrary to Patel’s assertion on Fox News’ “Sunday Morning Futures,” Minnesota does not prohibit individuals with proper permits from carrying firearms at protests or demonstrations. During the January 25 interview, Patel claimed, “You cannot bring a firearm loaded with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want. It’s that simple.” This statement directly contradicts established state law.

The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus swiftly responded, stating, “This is completely incorrect on Minnesota law. There is no prohibition on a permit holder carrying a firearm, loaded, with multiple magazines at a protest or rally in Minnesota.”

Legal experts confirm that Minnesota is not among the 16 U.S. states that have enacted laws prohibiting open or concealed carry of firearms at protests, demonstrations, or public gatherings. According to the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, state law requires a permit to carry a gun in public, but does not mandate concealment nor restrict where permit holders may carry their weapons, including at demonstrations.

Rob Doar, president of the Minnesota Gun Owners Law Center, reinforced this position in an interview with local CBS affiliate WCCO, stating plainly, “There’s no prohibition in Minnesota statute that says you can’t carry a firearm at a protest.”

The controversy stems from the January 24 fatal shooting of Alex Pretti by Border Patrol agents during a demonstration against federal immigration enforcement in Minneapolis. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem suggested at a press conference that Pretti’s possession of a firearm indicated violent intent, saying, “I don’t know of any peaceful protester that shows up with a gun and ammunition rather than a sign.”

However, Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara offered a different perspective, noting that based on available video evidence, Pretti appeared to be “exercising his First Amendment rights to record law enforcement activity, and also exercising his Second Amendment rights to lawfully be armed in a public space in the city.”

Video footage from bystanders does not show Pretti threatening officers or removing his gun from his waistband during the altercation. In fact, reports indicate that an officer removed Pretti’s weapon from his waistband before the shooting occurred. State officials have confirmed that Pretti had a valid permit for his handgun.

When asked about the discrepancy in his statement, the FBI declined to comment. Patel later appeared to soften his position during a January 26 interview on Fox News’ Hannity program, saying, “It’s not smart to go out there with a fully loaded weapon. We’re just saying be careful and be reasonable. If you have a right to a permit for a firearm, that’s OK. But you cannot incite violence and you cannot break the law — and attack federal law enforcement officers.”

The incident highlights the complex intersection of gun rights, protest activities, and law enforcement interactions in states with permissive carry laws. While federal officials have characterized Pretti’s presence with a firearm as threatening, no evidence has been provided to support claims that he intended to “inflict maximum damage” or “kill law enforcement,” as Noem suggested.

This case continues to raise questions about both the accuracy of statements from federal officials and the circumstances surrounding Pretti’s death, with investigations ongoing.