Lydia Kaiser, Tim Walz, and the “Right” to Live Free From Gun Violence

Minnesota is home to me. I spent the first 29 years of my life there, and most of my family still lives there today. When something happens in Minnesota, it feels personal.

Lydia Kaiser addresses reporters at the Minnesota State Capitol alongside Governor Tim Walz during a press conference announcing proposed gun legislation following the Annunciation school shooting. (Photo: Office of Gov. Tim Walz)

The shooting at Annunciation Catholic School was evil. Two children were killed. Others were injured. Families were shattered. No political argument changes that. No constitutional debate softens that reality.

Protecting children is not optional. It is a moral obligation. It belongs to parents first, to communities second, and yes, to government as well. Schools should be safe. Churches should be safe. Children should not have to hide under pews.

Six months after the Annunciation school shooting, Governor Tim Walz announced a gun control package that includes a proposed ban on so-called assault weapons and high-capacity magazines, along with additional restrictions and mental health initiatives. At the Capitol, empty desks were placed in honor of the children who were killed.

An eighth grader, Lydia Kaiser, who survived being shot in the head, spoke at the press conference. She described 116 rounds fired through stained glass windows during Mass. Children hiding under pews. Emergency brain surgery. A long road to recovery. Then she said, “All children have the right to live free from gun violence.”

Lydia Kaiser, an eighth-grade student at Annunciation Catholic School, shared her harrowing experience of surviving a mass shooting, calling on lawmakers to take action on gun violence. pic.twitter.com/ee0o9bwR6z

— FOX 9 (@FOX9) February 24, 2026

Almost anyone who hears that feels the emotional pull. I know I did.

And that is where we have to be careful.

Wanting children to be safe is not controversial. Expecting leaders to pursue real, effective solutions is not controversial either. The disagreement is not about whether we protect kids. It is about whether the policies being proposed will actually do that, and whether redefining constitutional rights in response to tragedy moves us closer to safety or simply shifts responsibility.

This is not about dismissing a child’s pain. It is about making sure the adults respond to that pain with clear thinking, constitutional fidelity, and policies that address the root of violence rather than focusing only on the tools involved.

Before we redefine what a “right” is, we should understand what rights actually are.

What Is a Right? (Legally Speaking)

In the American system, rights are not guarantees that nothing bad will ever happen to you. They are limits placed on government power. That distinction matters.

The Constitution primarily protects what legal scholars call negative rights. A negative right does not require someone else to provide you with something; it requires the government to refrain from interfering. The First Amendment does not promise you will never be offended, only that the government cannot silence your speech. The Fourth Amendment does not promise crime will not occur, only that the government cannot search and seize unreasonably. The Second Amendment follows that same structure. It does not guarantee that violence will cease to exist. It restricts the government from disarming law-abiding citizens.

Rights restrain government authority. They do not eliminate risk from human life.

Plaintiff Dick Heller addresses the media outside the U.S. Supreme Court after oral arguments in District of Columbia v. Heller on March 18, 2008. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed this framework. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court recognized that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm for lawful purposes, including self-defense in the home. In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), that protection was applied to the states. And in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), the Court confirmed that carrying firearms in public for self-defense falls within the nation’s constitutional tradition.

What the Court has never recognized is a constitutional right to live free from violence. What it has recognized is the right to defend oneself against it. Those are not the same thing.

“Freedom From” vs. “Freedom To”

There is also a difference between what are sometimes called positive and negative rights. A claim that citizens have a “right to live free from gun violence” resembles a positive right that requires the government to actively provide or guarantee safety. The difficulty is that guaranteeing safety from all violence would require control over everything capable of producing it.

Violence is not limited to one tool or one category of object. It is rooted in human intent. If the government assumes responsibility for guaranteeing safety from all private violence, its authority necessarily expands. It must regulate tools, restrict conduct, and exert broader control in pursuit of that guarantee.

The Constitution was not written to ensure outcomes. It was written to define and limit power in a world where risk and wrongdoing still exist. The Founders understood that liberty would involve danger, but they believed concentrated power posed its own dangers as well.

Government’s Legal Duty — and Its Limits

There is another legal reality that is often overlooked. The Supreme Court has held that law enforcement does not have a constitutional duty to protect any specific individual from private acts of violence. In DeShaney v. Winnebago County (1989), the Court ruled that the government’s failure to protect an individual from private harm did not violate the Constitution. In Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005), the Court held that police were not constitutionally required to enforce a restraining order to protect a particular person.

This does not mean police do not care or do not try. It means that under our constitutional framework, the government is not legally obligated to guarantee personal protection in every instance.

The Limits of Legislative Safety

Everyone understands that danger exists. We lock our doors at night. We teach our kids situational awareness. We don’t assume evil disappeared because we passed a law.

But in the wake of tragedy, there is often an assumption that if we regulate enough tools, restrict enough access, or prohibit enough categories of firearms, the underlying threat will recede. That assumption deserves scrutiny.

Danger is not manufactured by legislation, and it is not eliminated by it either. Laws matter, but they operate on people who are willing to obey them. The individuals who commit acts like the one at Annunciation are not seeking compliance.

Police respond as quickly as they can, but response time is not prevention. The Supreme Court has already made clear that the Constitution does not guarantee individual protection. That reality forces a difficult but honest question: when violence unfolds in real time, who is ultimately responsible for stopping it?

In many cases, it is ordinary people who choose to take responsibility seriously. That does not make them vigilantes. It makes them adults living in the real world.

Dangerous Freedom and Government Power

“I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787 (Image credit: AZ Quotes)

Thomas Jefferson is often credited with the phrase, “I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery.” Whether the wording is exact or not, the principle reflects a foundational tension in American government.

A state that assumes responsibility for guaranteeing complete safety must also assume authority broad enough to control the factors that produce danger. That inevitably expands power. The question is not whether safety is desirable; it is how much authority we are willing to centralize in pursuit of it.

The American constitutional system was built on the understanding that liberty carries risk. The alternative is not a risk-free life. The alternative is concentrated control. History shows that excessive trust in centralized authority carries its own consequences.

The balance between safety and liberty is not theoretical. It is the central tension of free societies.

Responsibility, Not Recklessness

What often gets lost in these debates is who lawful gun owners actually are. They are not caricatures. They are parents, small business owners, tradesmen, nurses, veterans, teachers, and your neighbors. Most do not carry firearms because they are eager for conflict. They carry because they understand that violence, however rare, is possible.

Carrying and owning firearms responsibly is not about aggression. It is about accepting responsibility in advance rather than reacting in hindsight. It requires personal commitment to training, judgment, restraint, and an understanding of when not to act as much as when to act.

The goal is not a society where children are afraid. It is a society where those who would harm them face resistance instead of helplessness.

The Conversation That Matters

If the objective is fewer victims, the discussion should extend beyond bans and slogans. It should include responsible ownership standards, meaningful training, secure storage practices, mental health intervention, and serious attention to school security. It should also acknowledge that empowering competent, law-abiding citizens is part of any realistic safety framework.

Policy shaped primarily by grief often narrows its focus to prohibition. Policy shaped by principle asks harder questions about effectiveness, constitutionality, and unintended consequences.

Closing

Protecting the innocent is not a partisan issue. It is not a talking point. It is a responsibility.

Children deserve safety in their schools and churches. Parents deserve to trust that when they drop their kids off in the morning, they will see them again in the afternoon. Communities deserve leadership that takes violence seriously and pursues real solutions.

I do not question a child’s desire to live free from fear. I share it. Every responsible adult should.

But protecting children requires more than emotion. It requires clear thinking, constitutional discipline, and the courage to pursue solutions that actually address the causes of violence rather than offering quick fixes that feel decisive but may not be effective.

There is no constitutional right to live in a world without violence. That is not because we are indifferent to suffering. It is because the Constitution was written to limit power in a world where human evil still exists. What it does protect is the right of individuals to defend themselves and their families when that evil appears.

Government has a role in school safety. Communities have a role. Parents have a role. And individuals have a role. Real protection is layered, practical, and grounded in reality. It does not rely solely on removing tools from the law-abiding and hoping that those intent on harm will comply.

If we are serious about protecting children, then we owe them more than symbolic action. We owe them policies that are thoughtful, constitutional, and focused on prevention, intervention, and preparedness.

Minnesota deserves that. Our kids deserve that. And the country deserves a conversation that honors both compassion and reason.