Why Gun Groups Oppose Transgender Gun Bans
It's not surprising that the NRA and other Second Amendment advocates spoke out against a trans firearm ban floated by the Trump administration.
Multiple news outlets reported in September 2025 that the Justice Department was weighing a ban on gun possession by transgender people, on the theory that they are "mentally ill" and therefore "unstable." That constitutionally dubious proposal provoked objections from gun rights groups that typically align with the Trump administration, including the National Rifle Association (NRA).
The immediate impetus for the proposal, which harks back to a dark history of attempts to disarm disfavored groups such as Native Americans and black people, was the August 27 shooting that killed two children and injured 21 other people at the Annunciation Catholic Church in Minneapolis. Police identified the perpetrator, who killed herself after attacking the worshipers, as a 23-year-old transgender woman.
CNN reported that "Justice Department leadership is seriously considering whether it can use its rulemaking authority" to "declare that people who are transgender are mentally ill and can lose their Second Amendment rights to possess firearms." Contrary to the implication, Congress has not given the Justice Department broad authority to disarm people based on psychiatric diagnoses.
Under 18 USC 922(g)(4), it is a felony for someone "who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution" to receive or possess a firearm. Thanks to that provision, Americans who have been subjected to involuntary psychiatric treatment permanently lose their Second Amendment rights, no matter how long ago that happened, whether or not they were ever deemed a threat to others, and regardless of their current psychological state.
While that policy is illogical and unjust, it at least requires a judicial finding or court order. By no stretch can it be construed to cover "mentally ill" people generally. The implications of such a rule would be sweeping, since survey data indicate that half of all Americans qualify for a psychiatric diagnosis at some point in their lives, while a quarter qualify in any given year.
Like Section 922(g)(4), "red flag" laws, which authorize court orders that suspend people's gun rights when they are deemed a threat to themselves or others, require a judicial determination. Those laws nevertheless raise serious due process concerns, which explains why they have attracted criticism from Second Amendment advocates.
It is therefore not surprising that the NRA took a dim view of the Justice Department discussions, saying it "does not" and "will not" support "sweeping gun bans that arbitrarily strip law-abiding citizens of their Second Amendment rights without due process." Under "federal statutes and binding Supreme Court precedent," the Firearms Policy Coalition warned, "the government cannot impose a categorical ban on an entire class of peaceable people." The Justice Department's trial balloon elicited similar complaints from Gun Owners of America, the Second Amendment Foundation, the National Association for Gun Rights, and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
Even if Congress approved a transgender gun ban, it is hard to see how it would be "consistent with this Nation's historical tradition of firearm regulation"—the Second Amendment test that the Supreme Court established in 2022. Since then, several federal appeals courts have ruled that categorical statutory bans on gun ownership, whether based on illegal drug use or criminal convictions, may be unconstitutional as applied to specific individuals.
In one of those cases, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit held that "nothing in our tradition allows disarmament simply because [someone] belongs to a category of people" that "Congress has categorically deemed dangerous." Such a ban would be even more constitutionally questionable if it were imposed by bureaucratic fiat.
This article originally appeared in print under the headline "Gun Groups Oppose Trans Firearm Ban."
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please to post comments
Ha
Is that the consensus among right-wing non-persons? It sounds about right, in terms of complexity.
Boring.
Typical Reason hot take.
Yeah,
1015 yrs. ago nobody cared about whether Tim Curry danced in a leather bodice and fishnet stockings while privately owning a gun. The reason people care now is because of several trans shooters shooting up schools auspiciously because they are trans. Which, if the aliens come down from space and several of them repeatedly say, they want to kill you, you'd be a fool to sell them or let them pick up a gun.So, should "red flag" anti-gun possession laws by considered unconstitutional in general, or just specifically for transgenders?
To be renamed “red fag” laws.
Good question. There are Mental Health professionals who believe that wanting to own a gun is a mental health issue.
Ones proposed by anyone associated with Trump, according to the shitstain 'writer'.
WAAAAAHHHHHHHHH EVERYBODY HATES MY ORANGE SUBSTITUTE DADDY FROM THE NEWS NOW WWWWWAAAAAAHHAHAHAHAHAH
Poor sarc
He he he... vulnerable right wing bitch got a little triggered there, huh? 😉 All as it should be.
You laugh at yourself when you fart.
Of course. Because it's not about the guns. It's about the person holding them.
I guaran-damn-tee you that the NRA would support a transgender ban, though. As we all should. The whole LGBT Pedo community should be locked up and kept out of civil society. They have nor want any place here.
Born again Christians who believe the end is near are mentally ill and should be barred from having guns.
What about drunks who lose their families after having social services called on them for inappropriately touching their daughter?
Yea, the born agains are a little wacky. My working theory is that they go at it twice as hard to make up for all the time they misspent before they found Christ.
I've got one that's a pretty good friend, but I hate going out to eat with her because she insists on us all holding hands while she says grace.
At Taco Bell.
Or wherever.
I'm considerate enough to humor her, and certainly I thank God for His bounties with any meal - but that's more an in "in my mind and heart" prayer of thanks. The born agains might consider that "being ashamed of your faith." I disagree and counter that it's just not being a weirdo about it.
nothing in our tradition allows disarmament simply because [someone] belongs to a category of people
Pot smokers aren't a category?
I'm not defending such a ban in any way. But smoking pot is an individual behavior that one must choose to partake in, not a category that one happens to be part of. I suppose the same could be said of trannies. And I wouldn't defend that kind of ban either. I don't think anything short of being convicted of a violent crime, or possibly being adjudicated as mentally ill and likely to harm others, should allow anyone's rights to be armed to be restricted.
We knew that as a TDS-addled steaming pile of lying shit, you'd get Trump in there.
Fuck off and die, asswipe.
Trannys are mentally ill. Mentally ill people especially ones ripped to the tits on hormones and other drugs shouldn't own firearms.
Glad I could clear that up for everyone.
A future government, given this precedent, could declare all people who display some behavior they disapprove of (like voting for someone they don't like or smoking pot or shooting endangered animals) mentally ill. Then they could take their guns.
To wit, Sullum essentially links Transgenderism to being black or Native American so it really seems and awful lot like gun grabbers and culture warriors are going to make up whatever reasons they want to grab guns and culturally-aligned faux libertarians will hide behind fake opposition like a stalking horse to make themselves seem, however fractionally, libertarian.
Of course we oppose a 'transgender gun ban'. Just because you declare yourself to be something you're not is not justification to be denied your 2nd amendment rights. We don't deny flat earthers their 2nd amendment rights, nor should a dude who claims to be a woman.
To be clear, once again, the whole argument is cart before the vagina-having stallion.
Trump didn't run on a campaign of "Hell yes I'm disarming trannies!" There is/was no Jim Crow or Missouri Order 44 against trannies. They legitimately are, or were, co-opting schools to harm children, shooting at Catholic schools and public speakers. We have a sitting SCOTUS nominee that, for mysterious reasons, is unable to answer the question "What is a woman?". Until fairly recently, transgenderism is was a legitimate mental disease that was associated with harm to self and others.
I certainly agree that no new laws are needed but Sullum's equivocation... like Trump, or anyone else is going to issue Tranny FOIDs and put a 10-round limit or tax stamp tranny guns manufactured after 2020 if they can't get a tranny gun ban... is patently retarded.
Right, we don't deny flat earthers their 2A rights, but flat earthers don't insist we cut kids legs off and inject them with drugs to prevent them from seeing the curvature of the Earth and shoot up the school who taught them the Earth was round, on principle, either. And, per Missouri Order 44, as well as other more recent events that the reader is assuredly able to come up with, we sure as fuck purge the hell out of people who collectively and maliciously try to subvert the public order to serve their own delusions.
JS;dr
JS;dr
The immediate impetus for the proposal, which harks back to a dark history of attempts to disarm disfavored groups such as Native Americans and black people
So, uh, is the assertion here that Native Americans and black people are secretly white people trapped in minority bodies or does the immediate impetus not really hearken back to anything?
It's not like transgender individuals are from a foreign culture and don't know not to shoot at children in schools or people speaking on college campuses.
Once again, when are you retrograde progressive culture war retards going to stop punching yourselves in the lady dicks with this stupidity?
Because firearm advocates are honest, unlike gun control advocates ... every time.
Side stepping the "taboo" baiting issue about gender:
Van Gogh walks into your nearest gun shop, head in bandages, blood seeping through from where his ear used to be and says he'd like to buy a gun. Never been committed. Never arrested for a violent felony. Not necessarily obviously on drugs at the moment, but, obviously "going through some things"...
Now, again, I'm not one to deny anyone their 2A rights out of hand or even to a fairly extreme degree, but *if we're going to have questions about selling people guns* and deny it to them based on those qeustions I think "Have you ever cut off a body part for psychological or non-medicinal reasons?" is a pretty fair one. Again, I'm not saying I will personally shut down the gun store that entertains the question "Does mailing it to a love interest count as medicinal?", but I would sincerely hope that store has the prudence to make the wise decision. I could understand how pretty much any state, county, or municipality would want to chase out a business handing out guns to people like that by any means necessary.
You don't get to disrupt or subvert the public trust and enjoy the benefits of it too.
Ban gun sales to progressives, black males between the ages of 10 and 40, trannies, and dykes. Gun crime in the US would drop to almost nothing.
Gun groups don't oppose *transgender* gun ban - they just oppose gun bans.
It would be easy to understand if you understood how people can have *principles* that have nothing to do with *principals*.
I think the key word is “adjudicated.” The state should not take rights from an entire group of people based solely on being a member of that group. Individuals should only be denied rights because of their negative actions. The other issue is that what the government decides is “mental illness” depends completely on who is making the decisions. To a leftist, it may be anyone on the right. To a rightist, it may be anyone on the left. I vote for “None of the Above.”