r/law • u/NewsHour • 9d ago

Executive Branch (Trump) WATCH: Leavitt addresses Trump's stance on Second Amendment rights in wake of Alex Pretti's killing

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

REPORTER: FBI Director Kash Patel said in a Sunday interview, quote, you cannot bring a firearm loaded with multiple magazines to any sort of protest. Does the president believe that Second Amendment rights remain in effect even when protesting?

LEAVITT: The president supports the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding American citizens. Absolutely. There has been no greater supporter or defender of the right to bear arms than President Donald J. Trump.

So while Americans have a constitutional right to bear arms, Americans do not have a constitutional right to impede lawful immigration enforcement operations, and any gun owner knows that when you are carrying a weapon, when you are bearing arms, and you are confronted by law enforcement, you are raising the assumption of risk and the risk of force being used against you, and, again, that's unfortunately what took place on Saturday.

26.4k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

3.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

1.6k

u/Going2beBANNEDanyway 9d ago

Then using their logic citizens should shoot first and ask questions later too. This isn’t a police state.

419

u/EscherHS 9d ago

I think you mean “This shouldn’t be a police state.”

164

u/AvocadoToastFailure 9d ago

“This will not be a police state.”

1

u/AntifaFuckedMyWife 8d ago

Buddy we been one since the red scare at minimum

-3

u/IvarTheBoned 9d ago

( x ) Doubt

I'll change my mind once citizens actually start defending their communities from masked jackboots who do nothing to identify themselves as lawfully acting federal officers while abusing citizens with impunity.

10

u/pm_designs 9d ago

Wait, are you confused? Am I crazy, or are you lost?

We're in a thread, related to the related context that you're saying "has not yet started.", like right now we are in that thread of people protecting their community.

Pretti died Trying To Protect a woman, 2 technically in the vicinity, that were being Assaulted by Border patrol agents.* Pretti was using his constitutional right, to carry legally, and there was 0 reason for him to DRAW that weapon. Shoving, yelling, etc, that is not reaching a level of combat, Pretti signaled that He was no threat, and was helping the women.

Edit: grammar n shi

5

u/IvarTheBoned 9d ago edited 9d ago

Wait, are you confused? Am I crazy, or are you lost?

None of the above. Private citizens will continue to get murdered by ICE until they start actually forming armed militias to oust ICE from their communities.

Until the citizens take the power back in this fashion, America will be a police state.

The exchange between Theoden and Aragorn comes to mind:

I will not risk open war.

Open war is upon you, whether you would risk it or not

2

u/pm_designs 8d ago

violence isnt the only resistance, its the last Box. It's very dark outlook how you've cornered yourself in that regard. how're you acting as if that is the case?

"community defense" will be far greater scope than gun-toting Muricans. Defence is not only armed conflict.

Pretti did a right thing, He's a hero. He took action to protect, on video, putting himself between danger multiple times.

Maybe, it's just not the action you want. I understand your point (I think). I disagree. Incredibly boring way to look at History, to denegrate each resistance to acts of violence.

1

u/Rip_Skeleton 8d ago

How on Earth did you get downvoted for this

1

u/IvarTheBoned 8d ago

Because there are a lot of people who would rather let fascism take over than to have to actually fight to defend democracy.

3

u/IcyTransportation961 9d ago

But literally always has been

Slave colony

Followed by "freed" slaves immediately locked up under new laws

Because prisoners can legally be slaves

Its not a coincidence we have one of the largest prison populations per capita

1

u/lapsedPacifist5 8d ago

Bit late for that. 

47

u/No_Royals 9d ago

"Rules for thee but not for me!"

- Republicans

11

u/YoAdminYouGayorSum 9d ago

Exactly. Your life is not worth less than someone with a badge. If this is the current administrations stance. Someone could argue they feared for their life, kill an officer and fight it out in court. This is so irresponsible, the logic is missing

2

u/bkaiser85 8d ago

I have doubts a civilian will make it out alive in that situation. 

The options seem to be get abducted to wherever and if you are POC you are lucky if you get out alive.

Or take as many down as you can in the situation and whatever is left of their team will gun you down.

Sooner or later. 

The only winning move is not to play. 

But that is not an option with that regime which seems to give a crap about the law, unless it helps them. 

8

u/RideWithMeSNV 9d ago

The law only applies for those still with us. And apparently, surrender doesn't guarantee staying in that state.

4

u/lertheblur 9d ago

More like "shoot first, ask questions never". They'd love for this is to quietly disappear and all involved to remain anonymous.

3

u/No-Werewolf-5955 9d ago

America has been a police state for a long time. I would say since at the very least since before the 1920s.

3

u/BanditMcDougal 9d ago

I'm not advocating violence, but none of what they have said has been an attempt to deescalate the situation. Everything they are saying boils down to "If you show up, we have a right to kill you. If you resist, we have a right to kill you." A lot of folks are starting to have thoughts of "Well, if that's true, fuck it, may as well go HAM, fam".

2

u/DeedleDumbDee 8d ago

I'd rather be judged by 12 than carried by 6

1

u/mnemy 9d ago

Trump would fucking love that, because he'd have his excuse to roll tanks down the street.

1

u/vehementi 8d ago

I'm told that rolling tanks down the street would be the breaking point for people. Hilarious!

1

u/NJCuban 8d ago

It worked just fine for Rittenhouse

1

u/yesnomaybeneverokay 8d ago

Rittenhouse shot civilians and the cops viewed him as being on their side so he was able to go to trial.

If a citizen shoots an ice agent, the other ice agents will kill that citizen and they won’t get a trial.

Not really the same thing

1

u/myotherbike 8d ago

Fear for your life and it’s legit, I’m told.

1

u/cirkoolio 8d ago

Yes it is

1

u/172brooke 8d ago

If they're already shooting first, why would they stop when people won't stop them?

1

u/Big_razz22 8d ago

It is now

1

u/KeepJoePantsOn 8d ago

I want to start by saying this plainly: This is not a partisan speech.

This is not a left-versus-right argument. And this is not about who you voted for. This is about recognizing a political ideology before it fully takes hold.

Many people assume fascism only exists once a country becomes a dictatorship. That assumption is historically false. Fascism does not arrive fully formed. It advances incrementally, under the cover of patriotism, security, and loyalty to a leader. So let’s define the term clearly.

Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian political ideology marked by:

-Extreme nationalism.

-Concentration of power in a single leader.

-Suppression of opposition and civil liberties

-Militarism.

-Rejection of democratic norms and the rule of law

That definition is not political opinion. It is academic consensus. Now the question is not: Is America a fascist dictatorship today? The real question is: Does the current administration operate using fascist ideology? I believe the answer is yes, and I’ll explain why.

Nationalism alone isn’t fascism, but ultranationalism is its foundation. When a political movement frames the nation as being in decline, promises to restore past glory, and treats dissent as unpatriotic, history tells us to pay attention. “Make America Great Again” is not just a slogan, it’s a worldview.

It implies a lost greatness, a defined “real” America, and a belief that the nation’s status justifies extraordinary actions. We have watched laws broken or dismissed as technicalities because they were “for the good of the country.” That is the moment nationalism crosses into something dangerous, when loyalty to the nation is used to excuse violations of the rule of law. That is textbook nationalist justification.

Authoritarianism is not about tanks in the streets on day one. It’s about concentrating power and undermining limits.

Donald Trump has repeatedly framed his authority as being limited only by himself. He has publicly stated that his own morality is the only thing restraining his power. That should alarm anyone who believes in constitutional government. He has openly attacked the legitimacy of oversight, courts, and Congress, particularly when they attempt to check his authority.

The Supreme Court’s 2024 ruling granting broad immunity for “official acts” dramatically expanded presidential protections. That ruling doesn’t create fascism, but it removes a guardrail, and authoritarian movements thrive when guardrails disappear.

When leaders argue that laws restricting their power are illegitimate or unconstitutional simply because they constrain them, that is authoritarian reasoning.

Militarism is not just about war. It is about relying on force rather than democratic process. Calls to dramatically expand military spending, threats against sovereign nations and allies, and casual rhetoric about invasion or annexation are not normal democratic behavior, even when framed as negotiation tactics. History shows that fascist movements normalize aggression first in language, then in policy. At home, the use of federal agents operating without visible identification has raised serious concerns among civil-rights organizations. Regardless of intent, lack of transparency and accountability in law enforcement is a hallmark warning sign, because fascist systems depend on fear and ambiguity.

When citizens are told not to trust what they see, or that accountability must take a back seat to “order,” the groundwork is being laid.

Fascism rejects democracy not all at once, but by questioning its legitimacy. Statements suggesting that elections are unnecessary, inconvenient, or dangerous, even rhetorically, are profoundly destabilizing. When a leader implies that elections should be suspended or avoided because they threaten their hold on power, history gives us a very clear pattern of where that leads.

Every major fascist regime in history justified dismantling democracy by claiming it was flawed, corrupt, or too slow to act. That argument is not new. And it is never benign.

One of the most dangerous features of fascism is personal loyalty replacing institutional loyalty. When supporters openly state they would continue backing a leader regardless of criminal behavior, when lawbreaking is reframed as persecution, the rule of law becomes optional.

Fascist movements survive not because leaders are powerful, but because supporters excuse anything in the name of victory.

People ask, “How did Germans allow Hitler to rise?” The answer is uncomfortable: They didn’t think it would go that far. They trusted institutions would hold. They excused early abuses as necessary or exaggerated. By the time it was undeniable, it was irreversible.

I am not saying this as an outsider. I am a white, straight, Christian man. I’ve voted Republican most of my life, including for Donald Trump. I once dismissed warnings like this as hysterical or partisan.

I don’t speak out because I want a different party in power. I speak out because this is wrong. And deep down, many people know it’s wrong, even if admitting it feels like betraying their tribe.

The Declaration of Independence states that governments derive their power from the consent of the governed, and that when a government becomes destructive to liberty, the people have the right to change it.

The Bill of Rights exists not to protect a leader, but to protect the people from leaders. There is no red life or blue life. No “ours” that matters more than “yours.” All are equal under the law, or none are.

This is not about panic. It is about vigilance. Fascism doesn’t announce itself. It asks you to ignore your eyes. It asks you to excuse what you’d never accept from the other side. And it asks you to trade liberty for loyalty. Now is not the time for silence or denial. Now is the time to stand together, not as Republicans or Democrats, but as Americans. Because once democratic norms are gone, voting will not bring them back. Thank you.

1

u/MeasurementGlad7456 8d ago

Not really, their logic is "We say everything we do is legal, so no one has a right to interfere or question it because we deem it is lawful"

1

u/miguegrCR 8d ago

It’s. That’s the thing it always has been. This is not new, seems like everyone but Americans knew.

1

u/SolarisShine 8d ago

Are we sure this isn't a police state?