The Left’s Second Amendment Whiplash

What this episode is about

The recent shooting of anti-ICE protester Alex Prey in Minneapolis has reignited the contentious gun control debate in the US, prompting notable shifts in the left's stance on the Second Amendment. Legal expert Amy Swearer discusses the legal and political ramifications of this incident amidst an evolving narrative from the pro-Second Amendment Trump administration.

Key takeaways

• In an ironic twist, gun control advocates now champion the Second Amendment post-shooting, flipping the narrative on its head.
• The Trump administration's pro-Second Amendment stance faces scrutiny as criticism echoes from unexpected corners—PR missteps haunt them.
• Alex Prey's firearms usage at protests raises questions: Are citizens truly safer with weapons in volatile situations?
• Gun rights vs. gun control debates became starker as tragedy sparks a chaotic dialogue rife with confusion and sensation.
• The tragic irony: even in a pro-gun climate, debates on responsible firearm use and public safety rage uncontrollably.

Who speaks in this episode?

• John Bickley (Host) · 6 min speaking
• Amy Swearer (Guest) · 8 min speaking

What is discussed, and when

1. 0:00 – 3:00: Amy Swearer, Good Ranchers, John Bickley, Alex Jeffrey Prey
2. 3:00 – 6:00: Alex Jeffrey Prey, Cash Patel
3. 6:00 – 9:00: Alex Jeffrey Prey
4. 12:00 – 13:57: Virginia, Hawaii, Amy Swearer, John Bickley

Notable quotes from "The Left’s Second Amendment Whiplash"

• Every order, they donate a portion of their profits to paralyze veterans of America. I love my cowboy box that I get from Good Ranchers every month. It's got everything I need.

  about Good Ranchers · at 1:00

• So, let's start with the incidents that have sparked this heightened anti-ICE campaign from the left, the shootings in Minneapolis. There are attempts now from the left to sort of turn the tables on.

  about John Bickley · at 1:51

• There was this general sense in their immediate comments of you know rushing to the fact that the individual who was shot, Alex Prey, was carrying a firearm at you could…

  about Alex Jeffrey Prey · at 3:48

• The brewing case. So it's a case called Wolford B. Lopez. so the short version of this is Hawaii after the Supreme Court told them and a bunch of other states, hey, you…

  about Hawaii · at 12:18

• That was Amy Swearer, senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom.

  about Amy Swearer · at 13:45

Who and what is mentioned in this episode?

People

• Amy Swearer — Person · Main guest · 3 mentions · first at 0:21
  Interviewed as a Second Amendment legal expert to analyze the Minneapolis shooting, use-of-force standards, and upcoming gun-rights litigation.
• Alex Jeffrey Prey — Person · Central referenced subject (shooting victim) · 5 mentions · first at 0:04
  His fatal shooting during an anti-ICE protest is the triggering event for the episode’s discussion about public carry, officer perception, and political messaging.
• John Bickley — Person · Host · 3 mentions · first at 0:27
  Introduces the episode and conducts the interview, framing questions about legal standards, federalism, and Second Amendment politics.
• Cash Patel — Person · Referenced government official (messaging example) · 2 mentions · first at 3:34
  Cited as one of the Trump administration figures whose early comments are criticized as poorly worded on public carry, shaping the episode’s political-messaging thread.
  Yes. so Cash Patel was one of those certainly not the only one that has come out. basically between Cash Patel and a couple of other members of the administration.
• Georgia Halm — Person · Co-host · 1 mention · first at 0:30
  Co-hosts the episode with John Bickley; present in the introduction of the show.
  Amendment expert Amy Swearer about the legal and political implications of the shooting. I'm Daily Wire executive editor John Bickley with Georgia Halm. This is a weekend edition of Morning Wire.

Companies & orgs

• Advancing American Freedom — Company · Affiliation · 2 mentions · first at 1:44
  Amy Swearer's affiliation, providing legal analysis on Second Amendment issues.
  That was Amy Swearer, senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom.

Places & events

• Virginia — Place · Setting · 2 mentions · first at 13:08
  Mentioned in the context of aggressive gun legislation being proposed by Democrats.
  Of gun laws. almost immediately we've seen a slew of legislation threatening to turn Virginia basically into the East Coast equivalent of California in terms of gun laws. so…
• Hawaii — Place · Setting · 2 mentions · first at 12:18
  Mentioned in the context of a Supreme Court case regarding public carry permits.

Sponsors

• Good Ranchers — Company · Sponsor · 2 mentions · first at 0:51
  Primary sponsor of the podcast episode, promoting their meat subscription service.

Full transcript with timestamps

0:04 Following the fatal shooting of anti-ICE protester Alex Prey in Minneapolis, the gun debate is raging once again in the US. Amid some head turning reversals from the left on the right to bear arms, the pro-sec amendment Trump administration has tightened up its messaging on the tragic case.

0:21 In this episode, we talked to Second Amendment expert Amy Swearer about the legal and political implications of the shooting. I'm Daily Wire executive editor John Bickley with Georgia Halm. This is a weekend edition of Morning Wire. This year, America turns 250. And while everyone's going to be talking about the country and its big accomplishments, I also want to talk about the people here at home who don't get enough credit. American Ranchers. These are the folks who've been feeding families like mine and yours for generations. And that's exactly why I'm a Good Rancher subscriber. Our sponsor, Good Ranchers, is the only meat company I found that's 100% committed to America at every single step. And with every order, they donate a portion of their profits to paralyze veterans of America. I love my cowboy box that I get from Good Ranchers every month. It's got everything I need.

1:09 Ground beef, ribe eyes, plus I personally got to add some bacon on the side. If you're feeding a family like I am, you got to know where your food comes from. And when you subscribe to Good Ranchers, you're saving up to $500 a year. Plus, you get free shipping and a free gift in every order for life. Right now, if you go to good ranchers.com and use our code wire, you'll get an additional $25 off your first order. That's wire for $25 off on top of the $500 annual savings when you subscribe. Goodranchers.com. American meat delivered. In light of recent events in Minnesota, the Second Amendment has become a big topic of debate once again. Amy Swearer is a senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom and joins us now. Amy, thank you so much for coming on.

1:50 Hey, thank you for having me. So, let's start with the incidents that have sparked this heightened anti-ICE campaign from the left, the shootings in Minneapolis. There are attempts now from the left to sort of turn the tables on the Second Amendment advocates using these incidents. What exactly is their argument and do they have a point?

2:08 Yeah. So, you're really seeing almost this weird upside down world, right, where you have uh members of the Trump administration, which has objectively been one of the most pro- second amendment administrations in in many many decades, who have come out with what I would argue are are pretty inartfully worded statements surrounding issues of of public carry of firearm despite their record, right, uh, as being pro- second amendment. And then on the other hand, you have just some of the world's biggest gun control advocates, people like Gavin Newsome, uh people uh groups like uh Gfords, um and other gun control advocacy groups that suddenly are just staunch supporters of the Second Amendment, right? And so it's this weird upside down world that we're living in. Uh and and I think at the end of the day, this is all a bunch of PR stunts from the gun control advocacy groups. not really interested in any

3:01 way, shape, or form in defending Second Amendment rights. And and I think that's unfortunate for the Trump administration. Um because again, they have so many Second Amendment victories that they could be celebrating. And I think what most average Americans are seeing right now uh is language coming out of the Trump administration that puts them in the same category uh as the language often used by gun control groups. And so it puts them in a bit of a quagmire. And it's unfortunate because it doesn't reflect the reality of actions.

3:31 Now, did some of those regrettable comments you've mentioned in response to the PR situation come from Cash Patel?

3:37 Yes. Uh so so Cash Patel was was one of those uh certainly not the only one uh that that has come out. uh basically between Cash Patel and and a couple of other members of the administration there there was this general sense in their immediate comments of you know rushing to the fact that the individual who was shot, Alex Prey, was carrying a firearm at you could characterize it as a protest. I would characterize it as frankly illegal uh non-first amendment protected activity. Um, and and I think what was difficult for these members of of the administration, including Cash Patel, was trying to find a way to articulate what the problem was. And what actually came out of their mouths was essentially saying, well, the problem was that Alex Prey was carrying a firearm in public or around law enforcement or he was carrying a particular type of firearm with, you know, particular types of magazines.

4:37 And I and I'm not sure that that's actually what they meant to convey. It certainly is not what the actual problem was, right? That the problem was what Alex Freddy was doing while he was carrying that firearm. Uh and the manner in which he approached law enforcement with that firearm.

4:53 Right. And we've since seen video of him allegedly kicking in the tail light of an ICE vehicle. So, some violent inclinations in the past interactions, but it does seem from initial investigations that this might have been just a really tragic sequence of events in how the firearm in particular prompted lethal response. In some ways, this does beg the question then, are citizens safer when they aren't allowed to carry a weapon in certain situations, or is the argument that they're always safer if they do feel like they're going to be in a situation where they're threatened? I think when you look at your average ordinary law- abiding gun owner, absolutely they are safer when they are carrying that firearm, when they have the ability to respond to criminal violence with uh you often hear firearms called death at a distance, right? That they're able to remove themselves from that violent confrontation and still defend

5:40 themselves. Um, obviously that changes when you have someone who is prone to to criminal activity, when you have someone who is mentally unstable and they have that firearm, right? That's that's not what we're talking about with your average ordinary law-abiding gun owner. Um, you know, certainly when you are that that ordinary gun owner and you find yourself going into confrontational uh circumstances that again that that changes the reality. If you are going out of your way to confront law enforcement, to confront anybody [clears throat] and you're going in armed, the presence of that firearm is going to change that dynamic fundamentally uh for better or for worse. And and in this case, I I think you were correct that it fundamentally changed it for worse. I I don't think that was ever necessarily Alex Py's intent. Um I don't get the sense that he intended to and he certainly did not ever draw that firearm

6:34 to threaten law enforcement. Um but its presence in that confrontational manner as soon as law enforcement became aware of that. Well, now you've got a fundamentally different dynamic where law enforcement doesn't know his intent. Um you've got multiple officers trying to figure out where that gun is, uh what to do with it. And I I truly think you have a tragic misinterpretation of the circumstances by by the officer who ultimately shot him. Um but it's it's it's a complicated dynamic. Um and I don't think that undermines the Second Amendment reality. I think some of this is incumbent upon Alex Prey and the circumstances he intentionally went into and fostered while lawfully carrying that firearm.

7:14 I think a lot of people have looked at this incident and the situation with Renee Good and they both come down to to splitsecond decisions that have to be made by these officers. A perceived threat, whether or not it's a real threat comes into play when we're talking about the legal arguments in these cases. What are the arguments that are at play on both sides here in terms of both good and pretty

7:36 for both of them for the law enforcement officer who who used lethal force that analysis that legal analysis is going to be the same. So in order for that use of force to be justified that officer had to reasonably believe have a reasonable fear that he was about to to be in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm. Right? So he doesn't have to actually have already had that harm inflicted. Um and he can't you know just wildly guess there needs to be some reasonable component as to why he feared that he he was at imminent risk of that.

8:08 Um so in the case of Renee Good that he was imminently about to be hit by a vehicle which is a deadly object right that is certainly something that can inflict uh serious bodily harm. And in the case of Alex Prey, you're looking at did that officer reasonably believe uh that, you know, Alex Prey had access to that firearm, was about to use that firearm. Um, you know, so that's going to be the same for both of these scenarios. Um, I I think one of the biggest distinguishing factors is that we now know from the Alex Cruddy video, right? We can slow that down. We can analyze it from all these different angles and we know that as a matter of objective fact at the moment Alex Cruddy was shot. He he didn't have possession of that fiber, right? It had been taken away from him. U and so I think a lot of people are struggling with this next concept of could the officer have been objectively wrong but still reasonable

9:08 in his interpretation of what was happening because he just didn't know. Right? Did he see Alex Freddy's phone in his hand and believe that was the firearm? Um, you know, so you you've got the sort of complicating factor here of something being objectively wrong, but still potentially reasonable.

9:27 One other question related to both of these cases. We see the battle now going on between the state and local investigators versus federal investigators into these situations where you might have had maybe misconduct by law enforcement, questions about the proper use of force, etc. Where are the lines drawn? Can the federal government just say no, the local and state officials cannot intervene and cannot investigate?

9:51 Yeah. Well, so it's it's certainly difficult because you have potentially uh crimes or uh civil actions at both a state and a federal level. Um you know, certainly there there's nothing that the federal government can do to definitively stop a state investigation. Um there's going to be that tension and it's not always clear sort of who has at the end of the day the authority to to tell who to do what. Um but I I I do think again that's part of the tension of federalism, right? Um you you have potentially charges under state law uh and state investigation charges. Um, and I understand from the administration's viewpoint, you have a state in Minnesota that, you know, you have officials that have been wildly non-compliant and unhelpful in terms of enforcing federal immigration law who have been uh bombastic and and really fanning the flames of a lot of this this uh community tension. A and so they don't

10:49 necessarily trust uh local police, local officials to do this investigation in a thorough way. Um but at the end of the day that that tension is always going to be there um when when you have both you know state and federal charges potentially.

11:05 So in that case we might see federal officials simply refuse to cooperate with local and state investigations.

11:11 Well I think that's that's certainly [clears throat] a possibility and I think that is most likely what will happen. Um, I I don't think given the the relationship or lack thereof that has developed between state and and federal officials, um, that the administration is really wanting to to cooperate or or, you know, be helpful in as much as the state of Minnesota is not wanting to be helpful in enforcing immigration law. Um, and I don't know that there's a good answer to that. And in fact, I I think the best uh scenario would be um the salvaging of that relationship. You know, I think so much of this tension would resolve itself if state and local officials would be more cooperative um or at least not actively hindering federal enforcement of those immigration laws.

11:58 Right. And that's clearly Tom H. Home. Homeman's main goal right now, trying to encourage more cooperation from the state and local officials. Final question, pretty broad for you, but is there a Second Amendment case you're following that we should be more aware of?

12:12 Well, I I'll give you two things. So at the Supreme Court level, um we've now heard oral arguments in the follow-up to the brewing case. So it's a case called uh Wolford B. Lopez. Um so the short version of this is Hawaii after the Supreme Court told them and a bunch of other states, hey, you actually do have to give ordinary citizens uh some method of caring in public, you do have to issue them public carry permits. Hawaii said, "Fine, we'll give you the permits, but we are going to make them utterly worthless outside the home." Um, so it's a case involving some of those restrictions that Hawaii has put on those permits. Um, we should have a decision in that by the middle of the summer and it all indications seem to be uh that the Supreme Court is gearing up to, and this is a very very official technical term, uh, headbi over this.

13:01 Um, so uh, look out for that. And I'd say one of the the bigger things that's sort of flying under the radar for those who are not living in Virginia is what Democrats are doing in Virginia in terms of gun laws. Um almost immediately we've seen a slew of legislation threatening to turn uh Virginia basically into the East Coast equivalent of California in terms of gun laws. Um so keep an eye out for what's going on there because I I think ultimately that will end up a bigger national news flying under the radar right now. Yeah, we've been tracking the very aggressive leftward turn of Virginia and a lot of legislation going on there with the new leadership. Meanwhile, I'll look up in my legal dictionary what headb means so that I'm fully versed on your argument.

13:42 Amy, thank you so much for joining us. Thank you for having me. That was Amy Swearer, senior legal fellow at Advancing American Freedom. And this has been a weekend edition of Morning Wire.

Questions about this episode

Who speaks in "The Left’s Second Amendment Whiplash"?

John Bickley (Host), Amy Swearer (Guest).

What is "The Left’s Second Amendment Whiplash" about?

The recent shooting of anti-ICE protester Alex Prey in Minneapolis has reignited the contentious gun control debate in the US, prompting notable shifts in the left's stance on the Second Amendment. Legal expert Amy Swearer discusses the legal and political ramifications of this incident amidst an evolving narrative from the pro-Second Amendment Trump administration.

What is mentioned in this Morning Wire episode?

9 people, works and ideas are mentioned, including Amy Swearer, Alex Jeffrey Prey, John Bickley, Advancing American Freedom, Cash Patel, Virginia. Each one on this page links to its own page with every episode that mentions it.

How long is "The Left’s Second Amendment Whiplash"?

The episode runs 14 min; the transcript is about 2,579 words in 25 timestamped sections.

More from Morning Wire

• All analyzed episodes
• Books mentioned on Morning Wire
• People mentioned on Morning Wire
• Sponsors mentioned on Morning Wire
• Topics mentioned on Morning Wire