The Minneapolis shooting of January 24, 2026, triggered a national flashpoint over a question I have been hammering for years: do law-abiding Americans retain their Second Amendment rights at public demonstrations and protests? The Trump administration’s initial responses were uneven — but the White House corrected course, and the big picture tells a story I am genuinely excited to share.
When Good People Give Sloppy Answers
Let me be fair here. FBI Director Kash Patel and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent both stumbled in their early comments, suggesting that showing up armed at a protest was inherently problematic. I understand how that happens — neither of these officials is a constitutional law expert, and being put on the spot under the national media spotlight is not easy. I would not expect Scott Bessent, an elite finance professional who understands the repo market and monetary theory better than almost anyone in Washington, to nail the nuances of Second Amendment doctrine on short notice. That would be like asking a DOJ lawyer to cold-answer questions about tariff arbitrage on live television.
But the legal reality is clear: you have a Second Amendment right to carry a firearm at a public protest, just as you have First Amendment rights to speak, assemble, and petition there. These are co-equal, fundamental constitutional rights. The Supreme Court has said repeatedly that the Second Amendment is not a second-class right — a formulation first appearing in Caetano v. Massachusetts, 577 U.S. 411 (2016), and reaffirmed in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022).
John Adams Settled This in 1770
This isn’t even a modern debate. John Adams — one of our most important Founding Fathers — served as defense counsel for Captain Thomas Preston and the British soldiers in the Boston Massacre trials of 1770. Adams argued in open court that the Bostonians had every right to be armed in the streets of downtown Boston and to carry those arms with them. Armed presence was fully lawful. What the law did not permit was using those arms offensively — turning a defensive firearm into a weapon of aggression or crime.
That distinction is exactly right, and it is exactly the distinction Kash Patel eventually landed on when he clarified his initial remarks. Carrying a firearm lawfully at a protest is constitutionally protected. Using that firearm to interfere with law enforcement, commit a crime, or attack another person is not. The Second Amendment has never protected the latter, and nobody serious is arguing it does.
Karoline Leavitt Cleans It Up
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt stepped to the podium and got it right:
“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.”
That is the correct answer — clean, precise, and defensible. Americans retain their Second Amendment rights. What they do not have is a constitutional right to obstruct federal law enforcement. That line is not hard to draw, and I am glad the White House drew it clearly.
Erich Pratt Takes the Second Amendment to the BBC
I also want to highlight something that frankly made me smile. Erich Pratt, Senior Vice President of Gun Owners of America, went on BBC television to explain the Second Amendment to a British audience — and opened by lifting a GOA-branded mug directly into the camera frame. Whether intentional or not, I think he should take full credit for it.
More substantively, Pratt made excellent points about the co-equal nature of First and Second Amendment rights, and he was honest about the tension gun owners feel: the Trump DOJ has, in some cases, continued defending Biden-era ATF restrictions in court and has been slow to drop the previous administration’s positions on GOA’s “One Big Beautiful Lawsuit” — the challenge to the 1934 NFA registration scheme. These are legitimate frustrations. I share some of them.
The Wolford Case and the Big Picture
But here is where the overall picture looks genuinely encouraging. In Wolford v. Lopez, No. 24-1046 — the Supreme Court challenge to Hawaii’s Act 52, which effectively bans licensed concealed-carry holders from carrying on private property open to the public without affirmative owner permission — the Trump DOJ under Attorney General Pam Bondi filed an amicus brief siding with the petitioners. That is the first time in my recollection that the federal government has argued the pro-gun-owner side directly to the Supreme Court. Oral argument was January 20, 2026, and six Republican-appointed justices appeared skeptical of Hawaii’s scheme.
Think about what Hawaii’s law actually demands: you need express permission from the property owner before carrying in a coffee shop, grocery store, or restaurant. At a Starbucks, who exactly would you call? The barista? The regional manager? The law is practically unworkable, and it was clearly designed to nullify Bruen on the ground.
My read is that SCOTUS is going to reject Hawaii’s approach. And having the Trump DOJ stand up and say so at oral argument matters — it sends a signal to every lower court that the federal government no longer views the Second Amendment as an obstacle to work around.
Are there things I would do differently on some of the litigation strategy calls? Yes. But on the core issues — AR-15s, standard-capacity magazines, suppressors, and public carry — the trend is unmistakably our friend.
This article is based on analysis by Professor Mark W. Smith, constitutional attorney and Host of the Four Boxes Diner 2nd Amendment channel. Watch the original video here. This does not constitute legal advice.