After Universal Condemnation From 2A Groups, Will DOJ Back Off Proposed Transgender Gun Ban?

If Justice Department staffers were just floating a trial balloon by talking to reporters on background about potentially banning gun possession for those who identify as transgender, that balloon was quickly popped by major Second Amendment organizations. The National Rifle Association, Gun Owners of America, Second Amendment Foundatiion, and National Association for Gun Rightse are just a few of the groups that have come out swinging against the proposal, which first emerged late last week. 

The DOJ has yet to officially comment on the remarks by unnamed staffers, other than to say that the agency “is actively evaluating options to prevent the pattern of violence we have seen from individuals with specific mental health challenges and substance abuse disorders,” but that “no specific criminal justice proposals have been advanced at this time.” President Donald Trump hasn’t commented on the idea either, so it’s unclear at this point where the idea came from and how much backing it might have within the administration.

It is clear, however, that trying to advance that ban would lead to significant pushback from 2A groups across the country. 

“Our advice to the ATF, DOJ, and FBI is to stop chasing headlines on the back of the Second Amendment and focus on preserving and protecting gun rights so that law-abiding Americans can defend their loved ones from violent nutcases, criminals, and gang members,” Dudley Brown — president of the National Association for Gun Rights, which has cast itself as more conservative than the NRA — said in a social media post. 

Second Amendment legal experts argued the potential ban would bypass due process and violate the Constitution. A person can be stripped of their firearms only after a judge declares them mentally “defective,” according to federal law.

“I don’t buy that this is real. In the off chance it is, it would be blatantly unconstitutional. And also without any legal basis,” Kostas Moros, director of legal research and education at the Second Amendment Foundation, said on X.

Other gun rights supporters worried a potential gun restriction from the Trump administration could create a precedent for Democrats to impose stricter gun laws once they eventually regain the White House.

“Once government starts deciding which Americans ‘qualify’ for 2A rights, the door is wide open for future anti-gun administrations to ram through Red Flag gun confiscation,” Texas Gun Rights, a gun advocacy group in Texas, said in a social media post.

It’s actually even worse than what Texas Gun Rights suggests. “Red flag” orders are, after all, temporary (at least in theory). Once the order has expired, the recipient of the order automatically has their Second Amendment rights restored. The idea floated by the DOJ staffers, on the other hand, would subject several million Americans to permanent status as a prohibited person. 

 As Moros notes, the gun ban for transgenders would be problematic from a constitutional perspective, and could easily be weaponized against other disfavored groups in the future. It’s not hard to imagine an anti-2A administration deciding that “gun nuts” or Trump supporters are mentally ill, so anyone with a Make America Great Again hat or those belonging to a group like SAF, GOA, or NRA should be deemed prohibited persons as well. 

If transgendered individuals can be prohibited from owning guns under the theory that they’re disproportionally responsible for mass shootings, could African Americans be prohibited from owning guns because they’re disproportionally charged and convicted of other violent crimes? Could white men over the age of 50 be barred from possessing firearms because they’re disproportionally using firearms to take their own lives? Even if this didn’t lead to a slippery slope the proposal is a terrible idea, but it’s also utterly naive to think it wouldn’t be exploited and expanded by anti-2A politicians and activists going forward. 

The idea also has some significant problems from a pragmatic perspective. DOJ doesn’t have the authority to expand the categories of prohibited persons, and while Gun Owners of America has pointed out several issues with the already overly broad statute, it still requires a determination by a “court, board, or commission” that someone “as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease” poses a danger to themselves or others or “lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.”  

With the Department of Justice considering a gun ban for millions of Americans under the unconstitutionally broad “mental defective” gun ban, we’d like to clear up a few problems with the current statute & ATF regulations. 🧵⤵️ pic.twitter.com/BrH3SDYxaB

— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) September 5, 2025

Even that overly broad language wouldn’t encompass a ban on gun ownership for every individual identifying as transgender, so it’s still unclear how DOJ would try to implement such a policy if it decides to move forward. 

We haven’t heard any more rumblings from DOJ after the initial reporting by the Daily Wire and CNN last week, including a defense of the idea. Hopefully that means that the proposal is dead in the water, but the fact that it was proposed at all is a reminder that, even in administrations that are ostensibly friendly to the right to keep and bear arms, Second Amendment defenders need to remain on guard against infringements on that fundamental right. 

Editor’s Note: Second Amendment groups across the country are doing everything they can to protect our fundamental right to keep and bear arms. 

Help us continue to report on their efforts and successes. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.