Justice Department Considering Ban on Trans People Owning Firearms

[mauserme]

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2025/09/04/justice-department-considering-pushing-ban-transgendered-people-owning-firearms/

 

 

Justice Department Considering Ban on Transgendered People Owning Firearms

Multiple sources familiar with the matter, including one official inside the DOJ, confirmed to Breitbart News that the Office of Legal Council (OLC)—which advises the Attorney General on legal matters—has held several such meetings since the tragic shooting, allegedly by a transgendered individual, that killed 2 children at a Minneapolis Catholic school and injured 21 others.

 

This legal question of banning firearm ownership for transgendered individuals would focus on whether these people suffering from gender dysphoria are in fact mentally ill and therefore should be denied firearm ownership while they are unstable and unwell....

 

"Democrats have called for common sense gun laws for a long time – this seems pretty common sense to me,” a source inside DOJ told Breitbart News.

 

While any decision is not yet final, the fact these meetings are happening seems to suggest there may be movement inside the Justice Department under Attorney General Pam Bondi towards taking some kind of step here....

 

 

 

[BobPistol]

Now watch how fast Democrats become pro-2A

[fxdpntc]

No comment except to say, Gender Dysphoria is listed in the DSM-5 as a mental disorder. 

[starwatcher]

This is a bad for the 2A

[John Q Public]

Or maybe not, the Dems will fight tooth and nail to avoid it, which is an admission which has teeth for all states. The left crazy pants can not not defend the the crazy pants trans. This could be very good for us, in a sad crazy, ignorant kind of way. 

Edited September 4, 2025 at 08:50 PM by John Q Public

[fenris]

On 9/4/2025 at 1:46 PM, fxdpntc said:

No comment except to say, Gender Dysphoria is listed in the DSM-5 as a mental disorder. 

PTSD, OCD, Anxiety, eating disorders, sleeping disorders, etc. are in DSM-5 as mental disorder as well - very slippery slope that set precedent for a significant amount of Americans.  No doubt anti-2A forces would then try to expands the net into having mistrust of government is a disorder that drives violence, etc.   

[mauserme]

The anti's are perennially expanding the list of prohibited persons.  It's one of their strategies. 

 

Abraham Lincoln is quoted as saying "The best way to get a bad law repealed is to enforce it strictly".  He may have been on to something.

 

 

 

 

 

[mab22]

States like IL, CA, NY, just won't enforce it, they nullify the constitution and who is in charge of the laws when they want. 
It will be called it bigoted and get all the phoebes. If they do enforce it I can only imagine the backlash that is coming and how else they will make EVERYONE a prohibited possessor. You have red blood? Prohibited!

The D party and the DSA wing of it look to certain groups to be their new militant wing, just like they had 60 to 90 years ago. 

 

 

 

 

[TomKoz]

On 9/4/2025 at 6:51 PM, fenris said:

PTSD, OCD, Anxiety, eating disorders, sleeping disorders, etc. are in DSM-5 as mental disorder as well - very slippery slope that set precedent for a significant amount of Americans.  No doubt anti-2A forces would then try to expands the net into having mistrust of government is a disorder that drives violence, etc.   

When was the last time someone with an eating disorder or sleeping disorder shot up a school / church ??

[soundguy]

This is bad for the 2A. From a supposedly pro 2A administration.
 

What group will be next… 

 

Cheers,

Tim

[ragsbo]

You know IF the democraps get back in power, they will try to do the same- saying ANYONE who wants to own a gun is mentally unstable therefore not allowed to own one! Remember what is good when the right people are in power can be wrong when the wrong people are in power.

 

Personally I think they are nuttier than squirrel excrement 

[soundguy]

On 9/4/2025 at 10:17 PM, ragsbo said:

Remember what is good when the right people are in power can be wrong when the wrong people are in power.

 

This is wrong no matter who is in power, even for those "nuttier than squirrel crap" folks who think banning trans-folk from having guns is a good idea. Once one class is banned, others be banned.

 

Cheers,

Tim

[davel501]

[TomKoz]

WELL, if I identify as a sovereign nation with my own rules and laws - your leftist restrictions have no bearing on me !!!

[mikew]

On 9/4/2025 at 11:09 PM, TomKoz said:

WELL, if I identify as a sovereign nation with my own rules and laws - your leftist restrictions have no bearing on me !!!

You forgot the purple.

 

 

 

 

[fxdpntc]

On 9/4/2025 at 6:51 PM, fenris said:

PTSD, OCD, Anxiety, eating disorders, sleeping disorders, etc. are in DSM-5 as mental disorder as well - very slippery slope that set precedent for a significant amount of Americans.  No doubt anti-2A forces would then try to expands the net into having mistrust of government is a disorder that drives violence, etc.   

 

Anti-2A forces are likely going to be pro-trans. Do you see the dilemma there?

[soundguy]

On 9/5/2025 at 9:41 AM, fxdpntc said:

 

Anti-2A forces are likely going to be pro-trans. Do you see the dilemma there?

 

Apparently there are anti-trans forces that are not pro-2A.

This may be the real dilemma.

 

Cheers,

Tim

[mikew]

CCRKBA agrees that it would be bad for 2A.

 

https://ccrkba.org/2025/09/05/ccrkba-doj-shouldnt-ban-guns-for-trans-people-over-individual-crimes/

 

CCRKBA: DOJ SHOULDN’T BAN GUNS FOR TRANS PEOPLE OVER INDIVIDUAL CRIMES

BELLEVUE, WA – Published reports that senior Justice Department officials are “weighing proposals” to limit transgender people’s Second Amendment rights is disturbing, the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms said in response.

 

“Prohibiting whole groups of people from owning and using firearms because a sick individual misused a gun to harm and kill children is as reprehensible as restricting the rights of all law-abiding citizens because some people have committed crimes,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “That anyone in the Trump administration would consider such nonsense is alarming.”

 

Reports from CNN and others say the unidentified DOJ officials are considering the move in response to the shooting at the Annunciation Catholic Church in Minneapolis late last month. CCRKBA says such a blanket prohibition, affecting unknown numbers of people who have harmed nobody, is simply wrong.

 

“Gun owners already know what it’s like for the government to penalize them for crimes they did not commit,” Gottlieb stated.  “We shouldn’t even consider such an extreme response to heinous act committed by one disturbed individual, much less implement it, no matter how horrible the crime. The deranged Minneapolis killer is no longer a threat to anybody, and we needn’t make scapegoats of others who had nothing to do with that outrage, just to create the impression something is being done.

 

-------------------

There is this, OTH:

-------------------

 

“The ironic aspect of this controversy,” he mused, “is that some in the liberal media are suddenly supporting gun rights because somebody in the Trump administration is talking about restricting transgenders from exercising their Second Amendment rights. Perhaps they will learn something from this.

 

[BobPistol]

On 9/5/2025 at 7:51 AM, soundguy said:

 

Apparently there are anti-trans forces that are not pro-2A.

This may be the real dilemma.

 

Cheers,

Tim

 

TERFs for example, don't have this dilemma. 

(Trans Exclusive Radical Feminists)

[soundguy]

On 9/5/2025 at 11:25 AM, mikew said:

“Prohibiting whole groups of people from owning and using firearms because a sick individual misused a gun to harm and kill children is as reprehensible as restricting the rights of all law-abiding citizens because some people have committed crimes,” said CCRKBA Chairman Alan Gottlieb. “That anyone in the Trump administration would consider such nonsense is alarming.”

 

We need to pay attention to the highlighted part above.

If some extra liberals choose to support 2A rights... that's a bonus.

 

Cheers,

Tim

 

[fenris]

On 9/5/2025 at 9:41 AM, fxdpntc said:

 

Anti-2A forces are likely going to be pro-trans. Do you see the dilemma there?

Not really, those folks will just say trans people should have the same limited rights as everyone else.  They are not going to say 'oops - I was wrong.  SBRs for all.' because of this.

[starwatcher]

https://x.com/NRA/status/1963993115410198964

 

NRA seems to be against it. Maybe they grew a spine after their support of the bump stock ban.

[Vodoun da Vinci]

Well, if one wants to limit the scope and influence of transgenders and such, or any fringe group for that matter, shouldn't they ultimately be disarmed to prevent retaliation? If one wants to suppress, subjugate, repress/oppress a particular group, in this case transgenders, the first step historically is to disarm them.

 

Pretty normal for folks who want to oppress a group to want them disarmed.

 

VooDoo

[ragsbo]

On 9/4/2025 at 10:27 PM, soundguy said:

 

This is wrong no matter who is in power, even for those "nuttier than squirrel crap" folks who think banning trans-folk from having guns is a good idea. Once one class is banned, others be banned.

 

Cheers,

Tim

The "trans-folk" are already in a restrictive category of folks, the mentally unstable. Anyone who thinks they can "change" their sex just by wanting to is insane! 

[soundguy]

On 9/6/2025 at 2:05 PM, ragsbo said:

The "trans-folk" are already in a restrictive category of folks, the mentally unstable. Anyone who thinks they can "change" their sex just by wanting to is insane! 

 

I know this might seem... insane. The prevailing thought is that their sex is not based entirely on the reproductive organs they were born with. I certainly do not understand it at all. It exists in our culture today. It may have existed this way for all of humanity. The difference is tech science that allows for a physical change of the body to correspond with the "sex" of the being. Labeling it/them as mentally unstable is likely quite inaccurate... it has existed for a very long time. Most, myself included, simply do not understand it. How could anyone understand it if they did not experience it?

 

If "trans-folk" are prohibited from keeping and bearing arms, you and I could be next on the list along with vets who suffered trauma in war, folks far too interested in militia training, anyone ever in trouble with the law for any reason...

 

This is not America.

 

Cheers,

Tim

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited September 7, 2025 at 05:18 AM by soundguy

[mauserme]

On 9/7/2025 at 12:12 AM, soundguy said:

 

I know this might seem... insane. The prevailing thought is that their sex is not based entirely on the reproductive organs they were born with. I certainly do not understand it at all. It exists in our culture today. It may have existed this way for all of humanity. The difference is tech science that allows for a physical change of the body to correspond with the "sex" of the being. Labeling it/them as mentally unstable is likely quite inaccurate... it has existed for a very long time. Most, myself included, simply do not understand it. How could anyone understand it if they did not experience it?

 

If "trans-folk" are prohibited from keeping and bearing arms, you and I could be next on the list along with vets who suffered trauma in war, folks far too interested in militia training, anyone ever in trouble with the law for any reason...

 

This is not America.

 

Cheers,

Tim

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That thought is one of the things that Bud-Lighted the Democrat Party. While it may still prevail in certain circles, a more prevalent though is the desire for a return to common sense. 

 

And, for better or for worse, this actually is what America has become under gun control administrations of the past couple decades.  Those who supported them, even indirectly through their votes, have no moral authority to lecture those of us who have been fighting them.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Tip]

On 9/7/2025 at 12:12 AM, soundguy said:

 

I know this might seem... insane. The prevailing thought is that their sex is not based entirely on the reproductive organs they were born with. I certainly do not understand it at all. It exists in our culture today. It may have existed this way for all of humanity. The difference is tech science that allows for a physical change of the body to correspond with the "sex" of the being. Labeling it/them as mentally unstable is likely quite inaccurate... it has existed for a very long time. Most, myself included, simply do not understand it. How could anyone understand it if they did not experience it?

 

If "trans-folk" are prohibited from keeping and bearing arms, you and I could be next on the list along with vets who suffered trauma in war, folks far too interested in militia training, anyone ever in trouble with the law for any reason...

 

This is not America.

 

Cheers,

Tim

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is what happens when “feelings” or “thoughts” are allowed to overrule actual facts. 
 

 

[mauserme]

Several off topic posts have been moved to a new topic, Transgender Discussion Split from Justice Department Considering Ban on Trans People Owning Firearms Topic, in the back room.

 

This thread is in National Politics. Please keep your points more focused on gun rights.

[yurimodin]

This is an awful lot of beating around the bush vs just bringing back sanitariums(ethically ran this time though).

[Smallbore]

I  think of masochistic in describing trans people. That being my opinion I do not think their thinking rises to being denied the right to have a gun to defends themselves. I doubt if many are a threat to others. I see them as a threat only to themselves.