Have federal prosecutions challenged state permit-to-carry privileges for protests in other states and what were the outcomes?

1. What prosecutors have argued and the statutes they invoke

Justice Department prosecutors have increasingly relied on a small set of federal statutes to pursue demonstrators, including 18 U.S.C. § 231(a) (impeding federal officers during a civil disorder), 18 U.S.C. § 2101 (the Anti‑Riot Act), and Section 922(g) firearms provisions — statutes that can reach conduct tied to interstate commerce or to obstruction of federal functions, and that have been used to escalate state-level protest incidents into federal criminal cases ^[2].

2. High‑profile operations where armed observers were prosecuted or confronted

Reporting links federal enforcement to arrests in at least two major immigration‑operation contexts: Chicago last year, where two lawful gun‑holders were arrested and charged under a federal statute for allegedly assaulting or impeding federal agents, and Minneapolis this month, where federal officials have asserted that bringing firearms to demonstrations can be unlawful and where a permitted carrier, Alex Pretti, was fatally shot during an immigration operation — events that have generated federal inquiries and local judicial responses ^{[1] [4] [3]}.

3. Judicial pushback and limits on federal crowd control tactics

Federal judges in multiple cities have pushed back on enforcement tactics used during these operations: a Minnesota judge barred federal officers from detaining or using tear gas against peaceful observers who are not obstructing agents, and similar orders were issued in Los Angeles and Chicago finding that certain crowd‑control tactics violated First Amendment protections for observers and journalists — judicial interventions that shape how, and how far, prosecutors and federal agents can act around armed protests ^{[5] [6]}.

4. Tension with state carry laws and competing legal narratives

State law and legal analysts complicate the federal narrative: many states, including Minnesota, permit permit‑holders to carry at public gatherings and have no explicit ban on firearms at demonstrations, and fact‑checkers and civil‑liberties groups note that being armed at a protest is not per se illegal where state law allows it — creating a legal tension between federal prosecutions keyed to obstruction or threats and state permit regimes protecting public carry ^{[7] [8] [9]}.

5. Outcomes so far — arrests, charges, courts limiting tactics, but no sweeping federal invalidation of state permits

The practical outcomes to date are concrete but piecemeal: federal arrests and felony charges have been brought against some armed protesters (Chicago arrests are reported), and courts have limited federal crowd control behavior in Minneapolis and elsewhere, but the reporting does not document a uniform federal prosecution that has successfully nullified a state’s permit‑to‑carry privilege for protests across the board; instead, cases proceed on individualized factual and statutory grounds and courts have simultaneously checked federal enforcement methods ^{[1] [6] [2]}.

6. Broader actors, agendas, and the limits of the public record

Advocacy groups and federal agencies bring clear agendas to the debate — gun‑safety groups press for bans on firearms at protests while federal enforcement emphasizes officer safety and the prosecution of obstruction, and political leaders have framed incidents to support competing policy goals — but the available reporting does not provide a complete docket of all federal prosecutions nor final judicial rulings overturning state permit laws; therefore the evidence supports that federal prosecutions have challenged armed presence at protests in specific incidents with mixed legal and political effects, rather than establishing a nationwide legal override of state carry privileges ^{[10] [11] [6]}.