In the aftermath of the tragic shooting at Annunciation Catholic Church in Minneapolis on August 2025, where Robin Westman, who identified as a trans "woman," killed two children and injured 21 others during morning Mass, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has reportedly begun exploring proposals to restrict transgender individuals' access to firearms. Sources indicate that one option under consideration involves classifying gender dysphoria, a condition associated with some transgender experiences, as a disqualifying mental illness under federal law, potentially barring those affected from possessing guns without individualised adjudication. This move, floated as a follow-up to former President Trump's 2019 executive order limiting transgender military service, has sparked widespread debate. Proponents frame it as a necessary public safety measure, while critics decry it as discriminatory overreach.
This essay examines the legal implications of such a policy, focusing not on the broader societal merits of transgender rights or identity, but on the core civil liberties concern: whether blanket or categorical restrictions on law-abiding citizens' Second Amendment rights based on gender identity violate constitutional protections. Drawing analogies to other targeted weapon bans, such as those on machetes or knives, the analysis highlights the risk of punishing entire groups for the actions of a few, underscoring tensions between public safety and individual freedoms.
Legal Framework: Second Amendment Rights and Protections Against Discrimination
The Second Amendment states: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court affirmed an individual right to possess firearms for self-defence, extending beyond militia service. This was reinforced in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen (2022), which struck down restrictive concealed-carry laws and mandated that gun regulations must align with the nation's "historical tradition" of firearm regulation, typically meaning they cannot unduly burden law-abiding citizens' core rights without analogous historical precedents.
Firearm prohibitions already exist under the Gun Control Act of 1968 (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)), which bars possession by felons, fugitives, unlawful drug users, and those "adjudicated as a mental defective," or involuntarily committed to a mental institution. These are narrow, individualised restrictions requiring due process, not blanket categorisations. Mental health disqualifiers demand a judicial determination of danger, not merely a diagnosis.
Overlapping with these are equal protection and due process clauses under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, which prohibit arbitrary discrimination. The Supreme Court's decision in Bostock v. Clayton County (2020), held that discrimination based on gender identity constitutes sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, a principle that informs broader constitutional scrutiny. Transgender individuals, like all US citizens, enjoy presumptive Second Amendment protections, unless a regulation is narrowly tailored and historically justified. Any policy targeting them by identity risks strict scrutiny or heightened review for animus or overbreadth.
Arguments in Favour of Restrictions: Public Safety and Existing Mental Health Prohibitions
Advocates for restrictions argue that they could enhance public safety by leveraging existing frameworks. Federal law already prohibits firearm ownership for those deemed a danger due to mental illness, and some DOJ officials have debated whether gender dysphoria, a recognized medical condition involving distress from incongruence between one's gender identity and assigned sex at birth, could qualify under § 922(g)(4) if it leads to instability. This would not target all transgender people but those with a formal diagnosis deemed disqualifying, potentially through executive action or rulemaking.
Proponents point to the Minneapolis incident as evidence of a pattern, suggesting that high-profile shootings by individuals with gender dysphoria warrant preventive measures. They analogise to Trump's military ban, upheld in part by the Supreme Court in Trump v. Hawaii (2018) under national security rationales, arguing that executive authority allows flexibility in crises. Historically, gun laws have restricted "dangerous" classes, such as intoxicated persons or the mentally ill, without violating the Second Amendment if applied even-handedly. In this view, the proposal aligns with Bruen's allowance for "sensitive places" or sensitive groups, valuing collective safety over individual access.
However, even supporters acknowledge limitations: Current law requires adjudication, not automatic disqualification based on diagnosis alone, as reaffirmed in cases like United States v. Rahimi (2024), which upheld domestic violence restrictions but emphasised due process. Blanket application to gender dysphoria would likely exceed this, as the condition affects only a subset of transgender people and is treatable, not inherently dangerous, arguably.
Arguments Against: Civil Liberties, Discrimination, and Overbreadth Concerns
The primary civil liberties objection is that such restrictions infringe on the rights of law-abiding citizens based solely on identity, echoing historical abuses like race-based or status-based disarmament. Transgender Americans, who number over 1.6 million adults, are disproportionately victims of violence, four times more likely to experience assault than cisgender individuals, making disarmament counterproductive and discriminatory. Gun rights organisations like the NRA have condemned the idea, arguing it erodes Second Amendment protections without evidence linking transgender identity to violence; data shows most mass shooters are cisgender men, just because of population statistics.
Legally, this would likely fail under Bruen's historical tradition test. No founding-era analogue exists for barring a group based on gender nonconformity, akin to prohibited racial or religious discriminations struck down in cases like Loving v. Virginia (1967). Labelling gender dysphoria as per se "mental illness" for gun purposes would be arbitrary: The American Psychiatric Association views it as a treatable condition, not a disqualifier like schizophrenia, and broad application risks violating the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which protects against disability-based discrimination, including gender dysphoria.
Moreover, it contravenes due process by presuming danger without individualised hearings, as required by Mathews v. Eldridge (1976). The ACLU has long argued that gun laws must avoid stereotypes; a transgender-specific ban would be overbroad, punishing millions for isolated incidents, much like prohibiting all knife ownership because of gang violence. Challenges would invoke equal protection, with Bostock providing a roadmap: If gender identity discrimination is sex discrimination in employment, it should be impermissible in Second Amendment contexts.
Critics from across the spectrum, including libertarians and conservatives, warn of slippery slopes, today transgender people, tomorrow other minorities, undermining the Framers' intent to protect against government overreach. Then society becomes like the present day UK.
Analogy to Machete and Knife Bans: Punishing the Law-Abiding for the Misdeeds of a Few
The analogy to machete bans illuminates the civil liberties peril. Machetes, like knives, are utilitarian tools in common use for lawful purposes (e.g., farming, hiking), but some jurisdictions like Australia, have restricted them due to gang-related misuse. Post-Heller and Bruen, courts have scrutinised such bans: In Commonwealth v. Canjura (Massachusetts, 2023), a switchblade prohibition was challenged as infringing "bearable arms" typically possessed by law-abiding citizens. The Second Amendment extends to "arms" beyond guns, including blades if not "dangerous and unusual," as affirmed in Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016) for stun guns.
A transgender gun ban mirrors this: Just as machete restrictions cannot constitutionally disarm all owners because "some might go crazy" in gangs, identity-based firearm prohibitions cannot strip rights from law-abiding transgender citizens due to one shooter's actions. Historical knife laws from the 19th century targeted the great Bowie knive, after duels which were limited; modern blanket bans fail Bruen for lacking tradition and overbreadth. Both cases highlight how fear-driven policies erode civil liberties, favouring targeted enforcement (e.g., against criminals) over categorical exclusion.
Conclusion: Choosing Narrow, Evidence-Based Measures Over Categorical Bans
A proposed ban on transgender firearm ownership, even if framed around mental health, treads dangerously close to unconstitutional discrimination, violating Second Amendment protections, equal protection principles, and due process. While public safety justifies individualised restrictions on proven threats, blanket policies based on identity punish the innocent majority for the faults of outliers, much like ill-considered machete prohibitions in Australia. US courts would likely strike it down as lacking historical precedent and rooted in bias, as seen in ongoing challenges to gender-affirming care bans under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Ultimately, civil liberties demand precision: Address violence through universal background checks, red-flag laws, and mental health support, not by eroding rights for minority groups. This balanced approach preserves the Constitution's safeguards against arbitrary power, ensuring the Second Amendment serves all law-abiding Americans equally.
Even for those opposing trans ideology, the civil liberty arguments must dominate.
https://www.naturalnews.com/2025-09-07-doj-weighs-firearm-ban-for-transgender-americans.html
https://nypost.com/2025/09/04/us-news/trumps-doj-considering-banning-trans-people-from-buying-guns/