News broke yesterday that the Trump Department of Justice has been discussing whether transgender individuals suffering from gender dysphoria should be considered “mentally unfit” to own firearms. Naturally, the anti-gun media went wild, blasting headlines about a so-called “trans gun ban.”
But before we let the Left define the conversation, let’s step back and look at this like gun owners.
What Kicked This Off
After the Minneapolis Annunciation Catholic Church shooting, CNN reported that DOJ leadership discussed ways to block transgender people from possessing firearms, tied to gender dysphoria and mental-health prohibitions. Other outlets echoed the claim. But people familiar with the meeting now suggest it may have been speculative chatter, not a green-lit plan.
Gun Rights Groups Quickly Push Back
Gun rights organizations, including the NRA and Gun Owners of America (GOA), have stated clearly that they oppose the idea of any gun ban.
GOA opposes any & all gun bans. Full stop. pic.twitter.com/nW0XzaLRhM
— Gun Owners of America (@GunOwners) September 4, 2025
The NRA emphasized that the Second Amendment applies to all law-abiding Americans and would oppose any blanket ban by the government that would strip those rights away without due process.
GOA went even further, pointing out how federal law on “mental defectives” (18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4)) has already been twisted by bureaucrats to disarm hundreds of thousands of veterans.
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
Here’s how GOA broke it down in a series of posts:
- Federal law originally applied only to those involuntarily committed or found incompetent to stand trial.
- The ATF expanded “mental defective” to mean anyone a bureaucrat decides can’t manage their own affairs.
- Since the Clinton years, that loophole has been used to ban more than 250,000 veterans from owning guns.
- Even though GOA and allies in Congress stopped the VA from adding new names in 2024, nearly 271,000 veterans remain on the prohibited list.
- The Supreme Court has made clear: someone may only be disarmed if they pose a clear threat of violence.
- Adding a new class of people — like all transgender Americans — would not just ban future gun purchases. It could open the door to gun confiscation from anyone in that group.
Groups across the Second Amendment community are rejecting any talk of a blanket ban. If the government can take guns from one group based on mental illness alone, it sets a precedent to take them from any group it chooses next.
Civil Commitment vs. Red Flag Laws
This whole debate really comes down to how America handles people who are dangerous to themselves or others. And here’s the key point: we already have a process for this. It’s called civil commitment.
Every state has laws on the books that allow someone to be evaluated and committed if a judge finds—after a hearing and evidence—that they are a real threat. Those proceedings come with serious due process protections:
- Court hearings
- The right to a lawyer
- The right to call witnesses and experts
- A high burden of proof (clear and convincing evidence, not just an accusation)
That’s how it should work. If someone is truly psychotic and violent, society has always had a way to deal with them.
Now compare that to red flag laws. These are a gun-control shortcut. Instead of a full hearing and due process, they let a judge sign away your rights based on accusations. No jury, no standard of “clear and convincing evidence.” No state-funded defense. Red flag laws target gun owners specifically and bypass the protections built into civil commitment. That’s why they’re so dangerous.
If the Left objects to stripping gun rights from transgender people without a court hearing, they’re admitting that due process must apply before you can take away someone’s guns. That’s the exact principle gun owners have been fighting to protect.
Where the “Trans Gun Ban” Fits
The Trump DOJ leak ties gender dysphoria back into this existing legal framework. For decades, gender dysphoria was classified as a mental illness. Today, the psychiatric establishment downplays that.
ABC News, for example, insists:
The American Psychiatric Association (APA) and other major medical associations do not consider being transgender a mental illness and recognize transgender and gender diverse identities as normal variations in human expression. The APA distinguishes gender dysphoria — which is defined as “clinically significant distress or impairment” that transgender individuals may experience when they feel a difference between their assigned sex at birth and their gender identity — as a separate diagnosis, and supports gender-affirming care while opposing practices that try to change a person’s gender identity.
That contradiction is what the Trump DOJ is poking at. If gender dysphoria is considered a mental disorder when it leads to distress and instability, then it falls under the same federal law (18 U.S.C. 922(g)(4)) that already prevents those adjudicated as mentally ill from owning guns.
What Trump’s Team Is Really Doing
Mark Smith argues that the Trump administration isn’t rushing toward some sweeping ban. Instead, they’re doing three things:
- Reframing gender dysphoria as a mental illness. This challenges the psychiatric establishment and forces a political debate over whether it should be treated differently under existing gun laws.
- Forcing the Left into a corner. If Democrats want to defend transgender rights, they’ll have to defend the Second Amendment and due process for transgender individuals, too. Both are arguments that strengthen the rights of all gun owners.
- Shifting blame away from guns. By highlighting mental health issues tied to mass shooters, the administration can argue: the problem isn’t the AR-15, it’s untreated, unstable individuals. That makes it harder for anti-gun politicians to call for more bans.
Smith also suggests Trump may be laying groundwork for a broader push to bring back mental institutions — not just as punishment, but as a way to treat people who are genuinely dangerous to themselves and others.
The Political Trap
This may actually be a smart play by Trump’s DOJ. By floating the idea, they force Democrats into a corner:
If they say trans individuals should keep their gun rights, they admit all Americans have the right to self-defense.
If they argue against due process, they expose themselves as wanting government power to strip rights without trials.
Either way, gun owners win the bigger fight: keeping the Second Amendment tied to due process, not politics.
The Gun Owner’s Takeaway
- Oppose all gun bans. All law-abiding citizens have the right to keep and bear arms.
- Oppose red flag laws. They’re a dangerous end-run around due process and target only gun owners.
- Support due process. If someone’s violent, lock them up through the civil commitment process. If not, leave their rights alone.
Bottom Line
Gun owners shouldn’t panic about this leak. What’s really happening is a fight over whether government respects the civil commitment process—or pushes “red flag” shortcuts that treat due process like an obstacle.
If Trump’s DOJ forces the Left to admit that every American, even those they champion, has the right to bear arms unless proven dangerous in court, that’s not a loss for us—it’s a big win.
We are in dangerous times! We are NOT meeting our funding goals! Will you help out?
Annunciation Church Shooting A Preventable Tragedy Enabled by Gun Bans
