In the nearly two months since Alex Pretti was killed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in south Minneapolis, there have been many debates about the interpretation of the rights given by the Second Amendment.

When he was killed, Pretti was legally carrying a handgun; however, claims that he attempted to draw it on officers are false. In the aftermath of the killing, many Republicans, and even President Trump, falsely claimed that you cannot have or carry guns to peaceful protests, which is a direct contradiction of the Second Amendment. Gun rights are a major point of the Republican Party, and this question of the true perspective of the party caused backlash from many loyal Republicans in the wake of the shooting, who say that Republicans should not count on their vote come the midterm elections this Nov. The Trump administration claims to be the most pro-second amendment administration ever, but statements made by the White House and Trump-appointed members of the Justice Department contradict that. I think that this contradiction will cause many Republicans to move away from Trump and his appointees because it shows that the Trump administration is changing their viewpoints away from the promises they ran on to target their political opponents, and alienating those people.

Recently, in response to the shooting at Annunciation Church and School in Minneapolis, which killed two students, Minnesota governor Tim Walz and state legislators introduced a bill that would ban semiautomatic assault rifles, but it failed to pass a state House committee. The bill is still active, which means it could be voted on again in the near future. This proposal received backlash from Minnesota republicans and gun rights lobbyists who have claimed that it violates Minnesotans Second Amendment right to bear arms. I believe that an assault weapon ban will help to significantly reduce the number of deaths and injuries from gun violence each year. I also believe it will do all of this without infringing on Americans’ right to bear arms because the Second Amendment is not limitless.

There has been an intense debate about rights regarding the Second Amendment for many years, but more recently, it has come under scrutiny because of the rising number of school shootings around the country. Because of this debate, it has become much harder to understand what rights the Second Amendment does and does not protect. The Supreme Court has, since 2008, interpreted the Second Amendment five times, and it has been addressed by 40 lower courts, all of which agree that it protects an individual’s right to own firearms for self-defense and other lawful purposes, and it protects a state’s right to maintain a militia. I believe that the most important part is that these Constitutional protections are not unlimited; they do not allow carrying every type of way, such as concealed or open carry, or carrying every type of firearm. In Minnesota, it is required that one have a permit to carry for both open and concealed guns; however, carrying is banned in schools and public establishments, and any homeowner can prohibit weapons on their property.

During the Annunciation shooting, an AR-15 semiautomatic rifle was used to shoot 116 rounds, killing 10-year-old Harper Moyski and 8-year-old Fletcher Merkel and injuring 30 others. I believe that if the shooter had not had access to these weapons, these two, and the hundreds of children who have been killed in school shootings would still be alive. I will end with a question: Does the right for one to own weapons of war outweigh the death of hundreds of kids?