The NRA and several pro‑gun groups have called for a full state and federal investigation into the killing of 37‑year‑old Alex Pretti by federal immigration officers in Minneapolis. Video footage and witness statements indicate Pretti did not brandish a weapon, prompting questions about the officers’ use of deadly force. Controversial social media remarks by Trump appointee Bill Essayli prompted widespread criticism and added urgency to demands for a transparent criminal probe.
NRA and Pro‑Gun Groups Demand Full Investigation After Federal Agents Kill Alex Pretti
Makeshift memorial at the site where Alex Pretti was fatally shot by federal immigration agents, in Minneapolis.Photograph: Tim Evans/Reuters(Photograph: Tim Evans/Reuters)
The National Rifle Association (NRA) and several pro‑gun organizations have joined calls for a full, transparent investigation into the fatal shooting of 37‑year‑old nurse Alex Pretti by federal immigration officers in Minneapolis.
Video widely circulated online and sworn witness statements indicate Pretti, a U.S. citizen who held a permit to carry a firearm, did not brandish a weapon when officers confronted him. The footage appears to show an officer reach toward Pretti’s lower back and then step away with what looked like a pistol before shots were fired.
Controversial Comments From A Trump Appointee
Public outrage intensified after Bill Essayli, a Trump appointee who briefly served as a U.S. attorney in California in 2025, posted on social media that “if you approach law enforcement with a gun, there is a high likelihood they will be legally justified in shooting you.”
Essayli later clarified he was referring to “agitators approaching law enforcement with a gun and refusing to disarm,” and advised against aggressively approaching officers while armed.
That initial remark drew swift rebukes from across the political and advocacy spectrum. The NRA responded that the sentiment was “dangerous and wrong,” and urged officials and public figures to await a full investigation before making broad generalizations. Gun Owners of America also pushed back, arguing federal agents are not automatically justified in shooting licensed, lawfully armed permit holders who approach police.
Political and Legal Backlash
California governor Gavin Newsom’s press office criticized Essayli, saying it was striking that even the NRA had called his comments into question. Former NRA spokesperson Dana Loesch and Republican Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky publicly questioned Essayli’s wording and emphasized constitutional protections for lawful gun owners.
A community note on the social platform X highlighted constitutional constraints, noting that officers are prohibited from shooting citizens merely for possessing a weapon that is not an “imminent threat,” and invoked Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment protections in addition to the Second Amendment.
Calls For Criminal Investigations
California officials and the Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus joined other groups in demanding a state and federal criminal investigation so the public can “fully understand what occurred and maintain confidence in the rule of law.” The caucus emphasized that the right to keep and bear arms applies to peaceable Minnesotans, including those attending protests or acting as observers, and said there is no evidence yet of intent to harm officers.
The caucus also disputed public statements by FBI director Kash Patel — who said on Fox News that people cannot legally bring loaded firearms with multiple magazines to protests — noting Minnesota law allows permitted carriers to be armed at rallies and that failure to carry a permit form is typically a minor citation.
Broader Political Context
The episode has fueled renewed debate over gun rights, police use of force, and political rhetoric. The NRA is listed among past donors to Essayli. The controversy also recalled comments by former president Donald Trump during his 2024 campaign about potential gun confiscation by political opponents and the NRA’s public alignment with his stance.
Investigations by state and federal authorities are ongoing, and advocates on multiple sides have urged transparency and careful review of the available evidence before conclusions are drawn.
Help us improve.
