Republicans have agreed on many core issues over the years, including lower taxes, smaller government, and individual liberty. And while they disagree from time to time, no single issue unites them more than the right to keep and bear arms.

That all changed this week in the wake of the ICE shooting of Alex Pretti in Minnesota.

FBI Director Kash Patel, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and federal prosecutor Bill Essayli argued in separate statements that a citizen cannot bring a loaded weapon to a protest. “You cannot bring a firearm loaded with multiple magazines to any sort of protest that you want,” Patel said, for example. This sent the Leftmedia into a frenzy. They rushed to publish headlines claiming President Donald Trump’s team had betrayed gun owners and caused MAGA to fracture.

Conservative media rightly criticized the careless statements as well. “Patel, Bessent, and Essayli are simply wrong,” the editors at National Review explain. “In Minnesota, one can absolutely bring a semiautomatic firearm ‘loaded with multiple magazines’ to a protest, and it is not the case that if one approaches law enforcement while carrying that firearm, ‘there is a high likelihood they will be legally justified in shooting you.’”

The editors add, “There are, of course, a whole host of rules against brandishing firearms, menacing the innocent with firearms, committing felonies with firearms, and so on, but merely attending a protest while in possession of a gun does not rise to that level. By all accounts, Pretti did commit one infraction — leaving his carry permit at home — but, under Minnesota law, that is a misdemeanor that is typically dismissed if one later provides proof to a court.”

The problem here is that defenders of the Second Amendment have taken many of these comments out of context. No one in the Trump administration is calling for a ban on carrying weapons, even to a protest. Instead, it seems, they’re merely emphasizing the fact that bringing a gun into a tense situation with law enforcement is not a good idea.

President Trump mentioned this when asked about the shooting of Pretti.

The Associated Press reports, “Before leaving for a trip to Iowa, the president told reporters he wanted to see an investigation into the death but also said protesters ‘can’t have guns’.”

Trump never explicitly stated that Pretti didn’t have a constitutional right to possess a weapon, but merely explained that it wasn’t a good idea. It was an emotional response that sent the wrong message, in the style that sometimes gets the president into hot water. This set off some gun rights groups, who jumped on the opportunity to criticize the president, and caused the anti-Trump media to salivate at the rift within his base.

According to The Reload, “Trump and several of his top officials initially responded to Pretti’s killing by implying Pretti, who Minneapolis Police say had a permit to carry, was acting nefariously by carrying a gun and extra magazines near law enforcement before White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt appeared to walkback those comments in the wake of pushback from gun-rights groups. But by Tuesday afternoon, President Trump once again made it clear he did not approve of Pretti carrying a gun.”

Again, Trump explaining that it’s not a good idea to carry a loaded weapon into the middle of a complex situation where armed officers are carrying out their duties is not the same as saying there isn’t a right to do so. This is particularly true if, like Pretti, you recently had a physical altercation with officers and you’re back again to interfere with the operation a second time. He wasn’t the good guy.

Second Amendment advocates are naturally sensitive to any words or actions they deem a threat, but Trump is a strong supporter of this right, and his comments shouldn’t be taken as a direct or veiled message that he’s changed his position.

Another interesting aspect of the national discussion on the shooting of Pretti comes from Democrats who’ve suddenly become outspoken and proud defenders of the Second Amendment.

Responding to outrage by the National Rifle Association over some statements by Trump officials, California governor Gavin Newsom stated, “I agree with the NRA on this. Nothing is sacred in Trump’s America; not the First Amendment, not the Second.”

No one takes a Democrat like Newsom seriously for standing up for the Bill of Rights, especially the Second Amendment. The Constitution only matters when it benefits or empowers Democrats. And, yes, some Republicans have been inconsistent on this issue.

“Sadly,” writes commentator Robby Soave, “too many politicians in both parties have been willing to compromise on fundamental Second Amendment rights. I’m perfectly willing to admit that many Republicans have been bad on this issue. But most Democrats are significantly worse, and favor all sorts of restrictions on gun ownership, on carrying guns, on which guns you can buy, on how long it takes. Every time anything goes wrong concerning a gun, we are told by Democrats that we need common-sense gun control, whatever that is. Are they now saying, in the wake of Pretti’s death, that they no longer support that? Please help make it make sense.”

Once the dust settles down, it’s unlikely the NRA or other gun rights advocates will break from supporting Trump. He’s been a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, and a misunderstanding like this won’t change that. As for Democrats, once they’re unable to get any more political mileage from this incident, they’ll start calling for gun control again.