Andrew Branca, famous 2nd Amendment attorney says otherwise. Here is some of his X comments from today.
Andrew Branca Show
@TheBrancaShow
·
2h
A man who shows up to a law enforcement action with a firearm and dozens of rounds of ammo, intentionally leaving behind the ID and firearms license the state of Minnesota REQUIRES him to have on his person when armed in public, who reportedly deleted his entire social media presence for heading to the “protest,” and engages in violence with federal law enforcement seeking only to enforce federal immigration law is appropriately deemed a terrorist.
Andrew Branca Show
@TheBrancaShow
·
7h
The video matters. In the Minneapolis Border Patrol shooting, the suspect was actively resisting, multiple agents were attempting to compel compliance, and the suspect straightened up with a firearm in hand—that’s when the first shot is fired. The still frames showing a “bent elbow” appear after the initial shot, consistent with a waistband reach during a struggle.
This wasn’t an “execution” or an ambush. It was a rapidly evolving use-of-force encounter involving a gun, loaded magazines, and active resistance. Media freeze-frames don’t override real-time dynamics. Under self-defense law, an armed suspect reaching during a struggle presents an imminent deadly threat—and officers are not required to wait to be shot.
Andrew Branca Show
@TheBrancaShow
·
7h
The firearm matters—and the media is hiding it. At the Minneapolis Border Patrol shooting, the suspect was armed with a SIG Sauer P320 AXG Combat, a high-capacity 9mm pistol with a threaded barrel, extended 20–21 round magazine, and a SIG Romeo optic—a setup costing $1,500–$2,000. This was not a cheap carry gun.
Officers were in a physical struggle with an armed suspect when a gun was perceived and the word “gun” was shouted. Under settled self-defense law, officers are entitled to rely on fellow officers’ reasonable perceptions. They do not have to personally confirm the threat.
Once a firearm appears during active resistance, the legal standard is simple: reasonable perception of imminent deadly force. That standard was met here. Freeze-frame activism doesn’t override real-time dynamics, and the law does not require officers to wait to be shot. This was a tragic—but lawful—use of force.
Andrew Branca Show
@TheBrancaShow
·
5h
This didn’t come out of nowhere. When Democrat politicians and media figures repeatedly brand ICE and Border Patrol as “Gestapo,” “Nazis,” or torturers, they’re engaging in what the law recognizes as stochastic terrorism.
The mechanism is well understood. Public officials use demonizing rhetoric, create moral panic, and then maintain plausible deniability when a listener finally acts. They don’t choose who commits violence or when—but they know someone will. That’s the point.
In Minneapolis, we saw the predictable result: an armed confrontation during a federal operation after months of political rhetoric portraying agents as evil and illegitimate. The violence wasn’t random—it was statistically inevitable once leaders normalized hostility toward law enforcement.
Speech is protected. Incitement by pattern is not morally neutral just because it’s indirect. When officials light the fuse and then walk away, responsibility doesn’t vanish. It just gets outsourced.
Andrew Branca Show
@TheBrancaShow
·
5h
The video does not show an “unarmed Good Samaritan.” It shows a chaotic physical struggle where a man later found to be armed intervenes, is pepper-sprayed, goes to the ground, and is then actively wrestled as ICE agents move in to regain control.
As the suspect stands up during the struggle, agents reasonably perceive a firearm coming into play—and the first shot is fired. Under settled self-defense law, officers are not required to wait until a gun is fully raised or fired. Imminence includes the moment a weapon is accessed during resistance.
Freeze-frame activists keep asking “can you see the gun?” That’s the wrong legal question. The standard is reasonable perception in real time, including shouted warnings, movement, and the dynamics of a fight. This was a rapidly evolving use-of-force encounter, not an execution. The law does not require officers to gamble with their lives.
That is new info to me and very meaningful. It shows intent to me and not good intent.
He was wearing Dark Sun Glasses, too.
Hat pulled down tight.
What did he think was going to happen?
The mechanism is well understood. Public officials use demonizing rhetoric, create moral panic, and then maintain plausible deniability when a listener finally acts. They don’t choose who commits violence or when—but they know someone will. That’s the point.
Those are also extremely poignant points. The left has been pushing the envelope with stochastic terrorism for a long time now. Two attempts on Trump and Charlie Kirk's murder are prime examples of hoped for outcomes.
I always appreciate how Branca breaks down such incidents.
Thank you.
I’ve been licensed to carry for over 15 years. Worked hard for it, and have CCW insurance the entire time.
I would never do something that would jeopardize it.
Has it been verified that this dude really had a permit?
Waltz said he did, but I don’t trust commies.