Overview of The Left’s Second Amendment Whiplash | 2.8.26
This Weekend Edition episode of Morning Wire (The Daily Wire), hosted by John Bickley with Georgia Howe, features Amy Swearer (Senior Legal Fellow, Advancing American Freedom). The conversation centers on the political and legal fallout after the fatal shooting of anti‑ICE protester Alex Preddy in Minneapolis, how the left and right have shifted public messaging about the Second Amendment, and several legal developments to watch that affect gun‑carrying rights.
Key topics discussed
- The Minneapolis shooting of Alex Preddy and the renewed national gun debate that followed.
- How some pro‑Second Amendment officials in the Trump administration issued cautious or awkward public statements about the incident.
- Gun‑control advocates and certain left‑leaning politicians publicly defending aspects of the Second Amendment in response — a perceived “whiplash” or role reversal in messaging.
- Legal standards for police use of lethal force and how those standards apply in split‑second encounters.
- Tension between federal and state/local investigations when both criminal and civil issues intersect (especially around immigration enforcement and public trust).
- Ongoing and upcoming Second Amendment litigation and state legislative activity to monitor (e.g., Wolford v. Lopez; Virginia lawmaking).
Main takeaways
- The public messaging about the Preddy shooting created an “upside down” political appearance: some traditionally pro‑gun officials sounded similar to gun‑control rhetoric while some gun‑control advocates defended carrying rights. Swearer calls much of this PR-driven.
- Legal analysis of officer use of force is governed by whether an officer reasonably believed they faced imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm — a standard that tolerates reasonable mistakes about perceived threats.
- Body and bystander video can make a factual difference: in Preddy’s case the video suggests the firearm was not in his possession at the exact moment he was shot, raising questions about whether the officer’s fear was objectively justified even if subjectively reasonable.
- Tension between federal and state/local investigations can lead to noncooperation when political relationships are strained (e.g., federal immigration enforcement vs. local officials), complicating accountability and prosecution.
- Keep watching the courts and state legislatures: the Supreme Court will rule on post‑Bruen public‑carry restriction cases (Wolford v. Lopez) and state actions (notably in Virginia) can produce sweeping regulatory changes that may become significant nationally.
Legal analysis & standards explained
- Use‑of‑force standard: An officer’s use of lethal force is legally justified if the officer reasonably believes they face imminent risk of death or serious bodily harm. The reasonableness is judged from the officer’s perspective at the moment.
- Reasonable mistake doctrine: An officer can be “objectively wrong” about facts (e.g., whether a suspect has a gun) but still be legally justified if their belief was reasonable under the circumstances.
- Video evidence impact: Slow‑motion/replay analysis can change the narrative by establishing objective facts (e.g., whether a gun was in the suspect’s hands), which then shape legal and public opinion about whether the officer’s fear was reasonable.
Political implications & messaging
- PR reversal: Swearer argues some leftist groups used these incidents to craft sympathetic pro‑carry statements as image management, rather than genuine defense of gun rights.
- Messaging risk for pro‑Second Amendment officials: Immediate statements that emphasize a suspect carrying a weapon can make pro‑gun administrations appear to echo gun control talking points, weakening political positioning.
- Federal–local friction: Distrust between federal and local officials (especially around immigration enforcement) may drive federal noncooperation and deepen investigation silos.
Cases & developments to watch
- Wolford v. Lopez (post‑Bruen litigation): Challenges Hawaii’s restrictions on public carry permits after Bruen; decision expected mid‑summer. Swearer predicts the Supreme Court will rule against Hawaii’s restrictive permit scheme.
- Virginia legislative activity: New Democratic leadership in Virginia is advancing a slate of gun‑control bills; Swearer warns this could turn Virginia into an East Coast analogue to California and become a significant national story.
Notable quotes / soundbites from Amy Swearer
- “Weird upside down world” — describing political role reversals on gun rhetoric.
- Characterizes gun-control advocacy responses as “a bunch of PR stunts.”
- On officer perceptions: “You can be objectively wrong but still reasonable.”
- Humorous aside about the Court: “head bop Hawaii over this.”
Action items / what to monitor
- Watch for the Supreme Court decision in Wolford v. Lopez (mid‑summer).
- Track Virginia legislature developments for potential sweeping gun‑law changes.
- Follow investigation reports and released video in the Preddy case to see how factual findings affect legal outcomes and public messaging.
- Note federal vs. state investigative cooperation (or lack thereof) in cases involving law enforcement actions and immigration enforcement.
Bottom line
The episode frames recent shootings (particularly Alex Preddy’s) as catalysts for a confusing media and political moment in which partisan messaging on the Second Amendment has flipped in places. Legally, use‑of‑force disputes hinge on whether an officer’s fear was reasonable at the moment, which can be altered by video evidence. Politically, both federal–state tensions and forthcoming court and legislative battles (Wolford v. Lopez, Virginia) are likely to shape the national gun‑rights landscape in the months ahead.