Department of Justice may be mulling a rule that would bar Transgender Americans from owning firearms.

 

File photo of the DOJ logo. ABC News/AP.

The Department of Justice is reportedly mulling a rule that would bar transgender Americans from owning firearms. ABC News. The policy is supposedly being discussed in the wake of the shooting in Minneapolis, which was carried out by a male-to-female transgender. Should the discussions lead to an actual policy change it would face major pushback, not only from the left, but from gun rights groups as well. Federal law allows for the banning of firearm ownership in cases of judicated mental illness, so it would be legally possible to expand that definition to transgenderism as well. However, doing so would be cross purpose to the Trump administration defense of gun rights. 

My Comment:

First of all, it's important to note that this story could be complete bunk. The DOJ has said there are no specific proposals in the wake of the Minneapolis shooting and all the reporting I have seen on this issue has been based on anonymous sources, the biggest red flag for a fake news story that exists. It's very possible, even likely that either the story has blown up the importance of a discussion, or that no such discussions have taken place. 

Indeed, the context might have been someone asking "can we do this legally?", and the answer being "no". Without named sources or an official statement all we have is conjecture. So why even write about this topic? Because the scenario proposed creates some extremely interesting discussions and has the potential to cause some major fractures on both the right and the left. 

In my case it's causing some tensions with my core support of gun rights. I do think that all gun laws are unconstitutional and the only folks that should not be allowed to own guns are people currently in prison or a mental health hospital. Self defense is a human right, and I am not comfortable with restricting that right under any circumstances. In a perfect world, even rehabilitated felons would get their rights back. 

But it's also true that the transgender community scares the crap out of me. Though news reports tend to downplay it, it's also clear that there have been several attacks and murders that were carried out by the trans community. Some of these murders, like the Zizian cult, weren't directly in support of trans-"rights", but I do think the Nashville and Minneapolis shootings were. And I have seen quite a bit of rhetoric from these folks either defending or downplaying those mass shootings. And it's also true that they have been buying quite a few guns themselves. I generally consider most, but certainly not all, transgender folks to be a political enemy and it's never a good sign when a political enemy is both radicalizing and arming up. I absolutely believe we will see more mass shootings and general homicides from the trans community as they continue to radicalize. 

Some folks on the right are arguing that this could be a win-win situation for the right. Their argument goes that the two most likely outcomes for the DOJ rule, should it ever come to fruition, would be either the rule getting overturned in a broad fashion, thus expanding gun rights, or the rule stays in place and the transgender community is defanged. Both outcomes would force the Democrats to put themselves into a difficult position, either defending gun rights, an anathema to them, or throwing their transgender constituency under the buss, causing more fractures on an already fractured party. 

I do think there is some merit to that argument, at least in the short term. But in the long term, it's extremely risky. What happens if the rule is kept but the next Democratic controlled DOJ decides to expand the definition of mentally ill? They could make it so that anyone that has been diagnosed with depression, anxiety or ptsd can no longer buy firearms. And who is to say that won't just say being conservative is a mental illness of its own? There is precedence for this as the Soviet Union weaponized Psychology this way to tamp down on dissent. 

And there is also the risk that either outcome doesn't happen. The court ruling could be crafted in a way that actually harms gun rights, upholding restrictions based on mental illness, but saying transgenderism doesn't count. And we know for a fact that any ruling in favor of gun control wont's actually do a thing to stop bad people from getting guns. All it takes is a sympathetic straw purchaser, a theft of just the fact that you aren't going door-to-door to confiscate the firearms already owned by transgender individuals and you still have a mass shooting. We might get some political benefits from it, but let's not act like the rule would stop a single crime. 

I do agree that there is a real chance of the Democrats forcing to pick and choose their constituencies, and the DOJ would be forcing into a bad position, but the fact is that they would be doing the same thing to Republicans. The NRA, GOA and other gun rights groups would be furious with this rule and many of them are already unhappy with the Trump administration. Is it worth it to anger them over transgenders? Probably not. 

I generally oppose the supposed rule. The answer to the transgender community arming up and radicalizing is to arm up ourselves, not restrict their rights to do so. If they really go completely nuts, I'd rather have as few restrictions on firearms as possible so we can better defend ourselves. And despite the political mayhem this would cause (and I have to admit it would be entertaining) the supposed benefits don't outweigh the risks. 

Regardless, I am guessing that nothing will actually come of this. There is a very good chance that the report isn't even true and even if it is, it's not like Trump's administration doesn't put out feelers all the time to weigh the reaction. I am guessing that they would get too much pushback from the gun community to actually attempt to do this.