You may have the right to bring a gun to a protest. That doesn’t mean you should | Opinion

In recent weeks, the conversation around protests and immigration enforcement has taken a sharp turn.

Some voices on the left are no longer just criticizing ICE or calling for policy changes. They are openly asking why “Second Amendment people” aren’t showing up at protests and, by implication, why they aren’t armed. That framing turns a constitutional right into a political challenge and ignores how these situations actually play out in the real world.

I believe in the Second Amendment, and I will defend it without hesitation. The right to keep and bear arms isn’t a slogan you pull out when it’s convenient. It’s a serious constitutional protection that comes with responsibility and judgment. Having the right doesn’t mean you should use it in every situation. Defending that right doesn’t mean pretending every use of it makes sense or leads to a good outcome.

This debate came into focus on recent episodes of the Dave Congalton Show. Tribune editor Joe Tarica pointed to District Attorney Dan Dow and framed Dow’s view that people should not bring guns to protests as the flip side of the Second Amendment, questioning how someone can support the right to bear arms while also urging restraint in that setting.

The night before, when I was a guest on the show, a caller argued that protesters needed firearms to defend themselves against law enforcement. Both arguments rest on the same faulty assumption, that adding guns to an already tense situation somehow makes everyone safer.

A militia is not the same thing as a few armed people acting on good intentions and poor judgment. The Second Amendment’s reference to a militia was about structure, discipline and accountability, not emotion or spur-of-the-moment decisions. It was never meant to describe loosely organized individuals bringing weapons into heated protests because someone suggested it on the radio or online. Confusing those two ideas isn’t faithful to the Constitution. It’s a misunderstanding of history.

What Kyle Rittenhouse case tells us

We’ve already seen how easily this kind of thinking can go wrong. The case of Kyle Rittenhouse — the Wisconsin teenager acquitted in the fatal shooting of two men during a Black Lives Matter protest — is often reduced to political talking points instead of honest judgment, but stripped of slogans, it’s a reminder of how quickly armed chaos can turn deadly.

Regardless of legal outcomes, choosing to step into a volatile protest while armed was a decision that could have ended far worse than it did. It came down to seconds and luck. That’s not something we should want to normalize.

The rhetoric escalated further when Tom Fulks, the local Democratic Party chair, appeared on the Dave Congalton Show a few weeks ago and asked, “Where are the Second Amendment people?” The message wasn’t hard to read. If you support the right to bear arms, you should be willing to confront federal law enforcement with those arms. That may sound bold from a microphone, but it ignores how fast confusion and fear take over when real people are involved.

Encouraging people to bring guns to protests isn’t empowerment. It’s reckless advice from people who won’t be there when shots are fired and won’t be around for the legal bills or the funeral. I can all but guarantee that Tom Fulks will not be helping you buy your casket.

This isn’t a defense of unchecked government power, nor is it a claim that law enforcement never gets it wrong. Those questions deserve serious debate. At the same time, I don’t support the lack of common sense coming from either side. Turning protests into armed standoffs isn’t courage, and brushing off the risks as theoretical isn’t principled.

There’s also a deep irony here. For years, we were told that the presence of police and firearms leads to danger and escalation. Now, some of the same voices are asking why civilians aren’t bringing more guns into confrontations with those same police. That isn’t consistency. It’s political convenience presented as a moral principle.

Supporting the Second Amendment doesn’t mean encouraging people to put themselves in the worst possible situations. Common sense doesn’t weaken constitutional rights. It recognizes reality, human behavior under stress, and the fact that once a gun enters a heated protest, consequences follow quickly and permanently.

You have the right to bear arms, and that right should be protected. You also have a responsibility to understand that exercising it can dramatically increase the chance you won’t come home, depending on the situation. The Constitution protects liberty, but it doesn’t cancel consequences or common sense.

Erik Gorham is a fifth-generation San Luis Obispo County resident engaged in local politics, public safety and government accountability.