Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker rejected a call by former D.C. police officer Michael Fanone urging Americans to use their Second Amendment rights to defend themselves against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), saying violence is inappropriate in all situations. Fanone’s comments followed a fatal shooting involving an ICE agent in Minnesota that has intensified debate over immigration enforcement and law enforcement accountability.
Fanone, who was wounded during the Jan. 6 Capitol riot, appeared on The Lincoln Square’s “Protect and Serve” podcast and suggested citizens should organize and exercise their right to bear arms to protect themselves from what he called a “lawless agency” after the ICE-involved shooting. He said Americans didn’t need calls from police to protest peacefully.
When asked about Fanone’s remarks on CNN’s State of the Union, Pritzker asserted that violence is inappropriate in all circumstances and encouraged peaceful protest. He urged citizens to avoid actions that could escalate into rebellion or insurrection, stressing that peaceful demonstrations protect civil liberties without giving authorities a reason to impose harsher responses.
Pritzker emphasized the importance of law enforcement “doing their job” properly and argued that federal agencies should follow established protocols rather than resorting to actions that inflame public tensions. He said peaceful protest and civil expression were the proper avenues for addressing disagreements with federal enforcement operations.
The governor reiterated that bringing guns into confrontations with law enforcement would be counterproductive, and he pointed to legal victories Illinois has achieved to prevent an escalation of National Guard deployments within the state. He framed his stance as prioritizing safety and order over conflict.
Fanone’s remarks come amid heightened scrutiny of ICE and federal immigration enforcement after the Minneapolis shooting of a woman by an ICE agent, an incident that sparked protests and political fallout. Federal and state leaders have clashed over law enforcement authority and the appropriate response to civil unrest following the shooting.
Critics argue that calls for Americans to invoke armed resistance against federal agencies risk normalizing violence and undermining the rule of law. Supporters of robust Second Amendment rights contend the Constitution protects citizens’ ability to defend themselves against government overreach. This debate reflects a broader national conversation about constitutional rights, lawful protest, and enforcement discretion.
The underlying ICE shooting incident has already prompted pushback from various elected leaders, legal challenges, and broader discussions about federal enforcement policy. Pritzker’s dismissal of armed resistance highlights ongoing tensions between state leadership and federal authority, as well as differing interpretations of constitutional protections and civil liberties.
