Was pretti carrying a handgun when he was shot

1. What the videos show about the weapon on Pretti’s person

Bystander footage reviewed by major outlets repeatedly shows Pretti with a handgun visible in his waistband or holster as federal agents wrestled him to the ground, and at least one clip appears to capture an agent removing a gun from his waist before additional shots were fired ^{[4] [5] [6]}. Multiple news organizations — Reuters, BBC, The New York Times, CNN and The Guardian — concluded from the available video that Pretti held a cell phone, not a gun, in the moments immediately before he was tackled and pinned ^[1]. Local reporting and video analysis similarly describe that while a handgun was on his person, there is no clear footage of him drawing or brandishing it during the struggle ^{[3] [6]}.

2. How federal officials described the encounter and the gun

Within hours of the shooting the Department of Homeland Security stated that an individual “approached U.S. Border Patrol officers with a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun,” and DHS posted an image it said was the recovered firearm ^{[4] [7]}. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and other administration figures characterized the event as an officer-facing attempt to “massacre” them, framing the handgun as central to a lethal threat ^[7]. That official narrative prompted immediate pushback because it emphasized the weapon while early videos showed Pretti primarily holding a phone ^{[1] [2]}.

3. What independent fact-checkers, newsrooms and analysts concluded

Fact-checkers and newsroom reconstructions noted a disconnect between the administration’s early claims and the video evidence: several outlets concluded Pretti had a licensed handgun on his person but was holding a phone during the lead-up to the shooting, and that the footage does not clearly show him reaching for the weapon ^{[1] [8] [3]}. Some analysts and law-enforcement experts who reviewed clips said the videos suggest Pretti may have been disarmed seconds before some of the shots were fired, raising questions about whether officers perceived an immediate, articulable threat at that instant ^{[9] [6]}.

4. Legal and investigatory context that matters to the question

Minnesota law permits carrying a handgun in public with a permit, and authorities have said Pretti held such a permit, meaning mere possession was lawful ^{[8] [2]}. Nevertheless, the central legal question for investigators is not mere possession but whether officers reasonably believed they faced an imminent threat — an inquiry now the subject of a Department of Justice civil‑rights investigation announced after the shooting ^{[10] [3]}. That probe will examine whether the use of force was justified given the sequence captured on video and other evidence ^[10].

5. Competing narratives, motives and the limits of current evidence

Political actors quickly used the presence — or portrayal — of a gun to bolster diverging narratives: administration officials emphasized the handgun to justify the shooting, while gun-rights groups and some civil‑liberties advocates pointed out Pretti’s lawful ownership to criticize the administration’s characterization and to argue the footage undermines claims of an immediate threat ^{[11] [12]}. Reporting to date relies heavily on public video clips and official statements; available footage supports the factual claim that Pretti was carrying a handgun but does not definitively show him brandishing or drawing it before the lethal shots, nor does it establish what the officers actually perceived in the crucial seconds ^{[1] [4] [3]}.