Podcast Summary: Morning Wire – “The Left’s Second Amendment Whiplash”
Podcast: Morning Wire
Hosts: John Bickley, Georgia Howe
Guest: Amy Swearer, Senior Legal Fellow, Advancing American Freedom
Date: February 8, 2026
Episode: “The Left’s Second Amendment Whiplash | 2.8.26”
Duration covered: [02:07] – [14:46]
Overview
This episode explores the heated debate surrounding the Second Amendment in the context of the recent fatal shooting of anti-ICE protester Alex Preddy in Minneapolis. Host John Bickley speaks with legal expert Amy Swearer about the shifting political rhetoric from both left and right, the legal complexities of the shooting, the nuances of use-of-force law, tensions between federal and state authorities, and major Second Amendment cases to watch.
Key Discussion Points & Insights
1. The “Upside Down World” of Second Amendment Advocacy ([02:20]–[04:01])
- Amy Swearer observes surprising reversals in political messaging:
- Members of the generally pro-Second Amendment Trump administration, including Kash Patel, made “inartfully worded statements” about public firearm carry and the Preddy shooting, echoing gun control talking points.
- Meanwhile, prominent gun control advocates (Gavin Newsom, Giffords) have paradoxically positioned themselves as defenders of Second Amendment rights—primarily as a “PR stunt.”
- Insight:
- The Trump administration's messaging places them uncomfortably close to gun control rhetoric, despite their solid pro-Second Amendment track record.
Notable Quote:
"It’s this weird upside down world that we’re living in...it’s all a bunch of PR stunts from the gun control advocacy groups."
— Amy Swearer ([03:16])
2. Breaking Down the Preddy Shooting & Its Legal Framing ([04:01]–[05:52])
- Amy outlines the Trump administration’s and Kash Patel's response:
- Immediate focus on the fact that Preddy carried a firearm at (what some call) a protest—she argues it was “illegal, non-First Amendment protected activity.”
- Challenges in messaging: Statements implied the act of carrying a firearm near law enforcement was itself the central problem, rather than Preddy's specific behavior and context.
- The crux is the “manner in which [Preddy] approached law enforcement with that firearm” and the tense, possibly misunderstood circumstances that led to the shooting.
Notable Quote:
“The problem was what Alex Preddy was doing while he was carrying that firearm and the manner in which he approached law enforcement...”
— Amy Swearer ([04:55])
3. Lawful Gun Owners & Changing Dynamics in Confrontational Situations ([05:52]–[07:44])
- Most law-abiding gun owners are safer when armed; firearms allow for defense against criminal violence.
- The calculus radically shifts if a gun owner enters confrontational situations (especially with law enforcement).
- With Alex Preddy, the mere presence of a firearm—combined with his actions—transformed the scenario, creating fatal ambiguity and tension.
- Law enforcement must make split-second judgments about intent, with tragic consequences possible even without explicit threats.
Notable Quote:
“Its presence in that confrontational manner, as soon as law enforcement became aware of that, well, now you've got a fundamentally different dynamic...”
— Amy Swearer ([06:36])
4. Split-Second Decisions & Legal Standards for Use of Force ([08:14]–[10:28])
- John Bickley compares the Preddy case with a similar situation involving Renee Goode.
- Amy Swearer explains what justifies an officer’s use of lethal force:
- The key is a “reasonable belief” of imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm.
- Objectivity vs. Reasonableness: Officers can make reasonable—yet objectively incorrect—judgments in the heat of the moment.
- In Preddy’s case, he did not possess the firearm when shot, but the officer may have reasonably (though mistakenly) believed otherwise.
- Videos allow post hoc analysis but can't always capture the instant perception of threat.
Notable Quote:
“…could the officer have been objectively wrong but still reasonable in his interpretation of what was happening because he just didn’t know?”
— Amy Swearer ([09:48])
5. State vs. Federal Investigations: Jurisdictional Tensions ([10:28]–[12:58])
- Bickley raises the fraught relationship between local, state, and federal authorities regarding investigations of law enforcement shootings.
- Amy Swearer notes:
- States and the federal government can pursue parallel or independent investigations.
- Federal government cannot stop a state probe, but trust issues arise—especially in Minnesota, where local officials have not cooperated with federal immigration enforcement.
- Resulting in friction, non-cooperation, and potential lack of faith in each other’s investigative integrity.
Notable Quote:
“That tension is always going to be there when you have both state and federal charges potentially.”
— Amy Swearer ([11:48])
6. What’s Next for Gun Rights? Major Legal Cases ([12:58]–[14:31])
- Swearer spotlights two issues:
- Wilford v. Lopez (Supreme Court):
- Hawaii’s restrictions on public carry permits—granted, but rendered “utterly worthless” for practical use.
- SCOTUS, after Bruen, may further dismantle these restrictions. Swearer predicts a “head bop” for Hawaii.
- Virginia Legislation:
- Virginia’s rapid move to expand gun laws, potentially mirroring California. Substantial implications “flying under the radar” nationally.
- Wilford v. Lopez (Supreme Court):
Notable Quotes:
“...all indications seem to be that the Supreme Court is gearing up to, and this is a very, very official technical term, head bop Hawaii over this.”
— Amy Swearer ([13:22])
“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.”
— Amy Swearer ([14:06])
Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments
-
“It’s this weird upside down world...where you have Trump administration coming out with...pretty inartfully worded statements...and on the other hand...advocacy groups that suddenly are staunch supporters of the Second Amendment...”
– Amy Swearer ([03:16]) -
“What was difficult for these members of the administration...was trying to find a way to articulate what the problem was. And what actually came out...was essentially...the problem was that Alex Preddy was carrying a firearm in public.”
– Amy Swearer ([04:21]) -
“If you are going out of your way to confront law enforcement...the presence of that firearm is going to change that dynamic fundamentally, for better or for worse.”
– Amy Swearer ([06:12]) -
“...as a matter of objective fact, at the moment Alex Preddy was shot, he didn’t have possession of that firearm. Right. It had been taken away from him.”
– Amy Swearer ([09:11]) -
“The best scenario would be the salvaging of that relationship [between state and federal officials]...so much of this tension would resolve itself...”
– Amy Swearer ([12:44])
Timestamps for Key Segments
| Segment | Timestamp | |-------------------------------------|--------------| | Podcast discussion starts | 02:07 | | Political reversals on 2A | 02:20–04:01 | | Trump admin/Kash Patel's statements | 04:01–05:23 | | Effect of gun presence on outcomes | 05:52–07:44 | | Split-second law enforcement force | 08:14–10:28 | | State vs. federal investigations | 10:28–12:58 | | Upcoming Second Amendment cases | 12:58–14:31 | | Closing | 14:31–14:46 |
Tone & Language
- Direct, legalistic, and analytic—consistent with Daily Wire's factual, pointed style.
- Amy Swearer’s language is expert but accessible, occasionally humorous (e.g., “head bop Hawaii”), empathetic regarding tragic outcomes, and notably non-partisan in her legal analysis.
For Listeners Who Missed the Episode
This analysis underscores the fluid political posturing surrounding gun rights, the complexity for law enforcement in chaotic situations, and the ongoing judicial and legislative contests that will shape the Second Amendment’s future in America. The discussion is rich with legal insight, pragmatic commentary, and an honest appraisal of institutional challenges at the intersection of law, politics, and public safety.