Professor Toto - Alex Pretti had ZERO RIGHTS to a WEAPON

Title: Professor Toto - Alex Pretti had ZERO RIGHTS to a WEAPON Summary: In this short legal commentary, Professor Toto argues that Alex Pretti did not retain a lawful right to carry a firearm while allegedly committing felonies involving interference with federal officers. He relies primarily on his interpretation of firearm law and Barnes v. Felix (2025) to argue that officers could respond to what they reasonably perceived as a deadly threat. The transcript contains no explicit Scripture citation, direct biblical quotation, or unmistakably identifiable biblical narrative. Therefore, no Scripture references have been indexed. Alex Pretti had ZERO RIGHTS to a WEAPON !!!! - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3hejSwjQ2A ble biblical narrative. Therefore, no Scripture references have been indexed. Alex Pretti had ZERO RIGHTS to a WEAPON !!!! - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q3hejSwjQ2A Transcript: (00:00) And I'm going to show you that Mr. Pretty did not have a legal right to have that weapon. Everyone is saying that was his constitutional right. No, it was not. Let me explain to you tonight. I'm going to give you the truth. Alex had a concealed carry permit in Minnesota. He completed the mandatory course. He had every legal right to carry a firearm. (00:30) But I'm about to show you in the law where he lost the right to carry it. Having a fundamental right to do something doesn't mean you can exercise it in any context without consequences. You have a fundamental right to free speech, but that doesn't mean you can commit perjury. You have a fundamental right to bear arms, but that does not mean you can bring a gun to commit a felony. Listen to me carefully. (01:08) The right remains, but when you use that right in the commission of a crime, you don't have a right anymore. Alex Pretty did not have a right to have that weapon. Here's what the video shows. And I want to be careful here ight in the commission of a crime, you don't have a right anymore. Alex Pretty did not have a right to have that weapon. Here's what the video shows. And I want to be careful here because there is an ongoing investigation. Pretty did not stumble onto this scene. He was part of a signal app group that was tracking ICE. (01:45) He went there specifically to interfere with federal law enforcement. That was a felony. To interfere and to premeditate to interfere with law enforcement is a felony. No one has a right to bear arms in the commission of a felony. the recording officer from inches away within a foot of the officer. That's interference. That's a felony. (02:24) Getting physically involved with officers trying to make an arrest. That's assault on a federal officer. That's a felony. Resisting arrest when officers try to take him down. That's another felony. and an officer screams, "Gun!" Because Preydy was carrying deadly force was identified. Prey moves his hand while holding an object that's a perceived threat. (02:53) A gunshot is heard and officers respond with deadly force against a man committing a felony. No, he had no right to bear arms in the commission of a felony. ceived threat. (02:53) A gunshot is heard and officers respond with deadly force against a man committing a felony. No, he had no right to bear arms in the commission of a felony. Now, of course, many of you students are going to question your esteemed grand professor tonight. Where does the law say that, Professor Toto, in Barnes versus Felix 2025? I really ought to charge for all this education. Barnes versus Felix 2025. (03:30) It says that an officer is entitled to consider the totality of circumstances when reacting to a situation. The officers do not have to be correct in their perception of a threat. They have to have a reasonable perception of a threat. The Supreme Court has settled it. Barnes versus Felix. When law enforcement hears the word gun and an object is moving in your hand and you're committing a felony and you have no right to that weapon in the commission of a felony, there is a reasonable perception of deadly threat. (04:14) And according to Barnes versus Felix, the law is on their side. So when this investigation is over, this police officer will be free because he perceived a threat. That's not murder. That's survival. The investigation has to run its heir side. So when this investigation is over, this police officer will be free because he perceived a threat. That's not murder. That's survival. The investigation has to run its course. I'm not drawing final conclusions about whether the man drew a weapon or not. I don't know. (04:46) But here's what we don't need an investigation for me to know. When you look for trouble, you'll find it. And in Minnesota, they get mad when they find what they're looking for. When you're part of a Signal app group tracking ICE officers so you can interfere with lawful enforcement, you're a felon. When you physically engage with federal officers, you're a felon. (05:16) When you resist arrest, you're a felon. Don't be surprised when things go bad. Obey law enforcement and you live. That's not a political statement. That's survival wisdom as old as time itself.