Why the American Left Is Deciding to Arm Itself Amid State Violence

The killing of Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old ICU nurse, by United States federal agents has sparked outrage and debate over what it means to be a gun owner in the United States. Pretti, a lawful gun owner with a permit to carry, was shot by two Customs and Border Patrol (CBP) agents during a confrontation in Minneapolis. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) quickly claimed in a statement that Pretti looked like he “wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.” However, this claim is not reflected in the CBP report nor by video evidence of the incident. According to the report, the agents fired their weapons after Pretti resisted arrest, and they saw that Pretti was carrying a gun. The shooting sparked contradictory responses from the Republican establishment and some of their staunchest supporters: gun rights activists. Furthermore, it brought attention to an emerging demographic of left-leaning gun owners, demonstrating that the left-right divide on the right to bear arms may not be as clear-cut as once assumed.

In response to the shooting, President Trump and other Republican officials, including former DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, and FBI director Kash Patel, have stated that Pretti should not have been carrying a gun at a protest, arguing that the fact he had a weapon made him an inherent threat to law enforcement. Gun advocacy groups such as the National Rifle Association (NRA) that have historically supported the Republican Party have pushed back against these claims, countering that exercising one’s right to carry a firearm legally does not constitute a legitimate threat. These groups argue that this rhetoric goes against Americans’ Second Amendment right to carry weapons, even during protests, and could lead to the perception of gun owners as inherently threatening. 

The Second Amendment, found in the United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights, provides “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.” However, the full text of the amendment expresses this right in the context of “a well-regulated Militia” with no specific reference to individuals’ right to gun ownership. This right emerged during the US Revolutionary War in the late 1700s, when it was deemed necessary for communities to form militias to defend themselves against the standing armies of British troops. The current interpretation of the Second Amendment frequently touted by conservative Americans is focused on the right of individuals to own firearms, rather than “well-regulated” local militias. For instance, in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court held that the Second Amendment extends to the individual’s right to own and carry guns. The majority argued that the term “militia” is not limited to military personnel, and if it were, this would violate the initial purpose of the Amendment as protection against state violence.

While Second Amendment advocates argue that guns are necessary to ensure one’s safety and provide self-defence, it must be noted that in economically and politically comparable countries where the right to bear arms is not constitutionally protected, rates of gun violence are far lower. Among high-income countries with populations over 10 million, the US ranks first with a rate of 4.52 gun-related deaths per 100,000 people, compared to Canada’s 0.62, France’s 0.24, and the United Kingdom’s 0.01. Not only is it more difficult to get a gun in these countries, but it is also considered a privilege rather than a right to be able to own one.

The partisan split between gun rights and gun control emerged in the 1970s and 1980s. The NRA, which was established in 1871 as a recreational group for gun owners to improve their marksmanship, established the Institute for Legislative Action (ILA) in 1975 to lobby for the protection of Second Amendment rights. At this time, major Republican figures also began advocating for gun rights, beginning the long-standing relationship between the party and the organization. However, as of now, there has been an element of bias regarding who was granted the right to openly carry arms. For instance, as governor of California, Republican Ronald Reagan signed the Mulford Act into law in 1967, which increased regulations on the open carry of firearms. This was largely in response to the Black Panther Party for Self-Defence, which conducted armed patrols mainly in Oakland, California, to protect their community against police brutality.

For the past few decades, with the increase of highly publicized mass shootings, the Democratic Party, along with left-leaning Americans, have been strongly advocating for increased gun control in order to prevent gun violence and ensure public safety.  In 2022, the Biden Administration signed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act into law, the most substantial federal gun control bill passed since the 1990s. The partisan divide on gun policy is also clear among the general public, with 83 per cent of Republicans claiming that protecting gun rights should be prioritized, while 79 per cent of Democrats claim that gun control is a more important issue. 

While gun control legislation remains widely advocated for on the left, it has not stopped people from choosing to legally obtain firearms. This was evident at the institutional level when, during her 2024 presidential campaign, then-Vice President Kamala Harris listed universal background checks, bans on assault weapons, and red flag laws as policy positions she would pursue. However, she has also emphasized the fact that she owns a gun for personal safety reasons and is firmly opposed to “taking anyone’s guns away.” 

More broadly, this attitude towards gun ownership can be observed in the growing membership in groups like the Liberal Gun Club and the Socialist Rifle Association over the past year, largely out of perceived concern for increasing state violence under the second Trump Administration. For instance, the deployment of federal agents, both Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), to a number of major US cities has been one of the most recent events where some Americans feel like the state is posing an active threat against them and their communities. People have been showing up to anti-ICE protests armed, arguing that force must be met with force. People of colour and members of the LGBTQ community have also expressed a renewed need for self-protection in an increasingly hostile political climate.   

A recent instance of this shift is taking place in Philadelphia, with the formation of an armed group called the Black Lion Party. Inspired by the Black Panther Party of the 1960s, their stated mission is to protect their community of primarily Black Philadelphians from various types of violence, including from law enforcement. They have been present at anti-ICE protests to protect protestors from the police, and have become known and scrutinized for their open confrontations with law enforcement. 

Evidence shows that national-level restrictive gun laws lead to fewer gun deaths, yet with the right to bear arms being deeply entrenched in the American consciousness, the extent to which these types of laws can be passed has been limited. However, as the use of state force increases, especially against marginalized groups or those opposed to the current administration, the decision by those on the left to arm up seems to be the only way to ensure their safety. With the left beginning to see bearing arms as a necessary protection, gun rights may no longer be a primarily Republican talking point.

Edited by Jacob Van Bergh

Featured image: “Agents Shoot Less Lethals on Nicollet Avenue in Minneapolis” by Chad Davis is licensed under CC BY 4.0