Why Gun-Rights Groups Opposed DOJ Talks To Bar Transgender People From Owning Guns

In September 2025 several news outlets reported that the U.S. Department of Justice had privately explored a regulation that would bar people who are transgender from possessing firearms by labeling them “mentally ill.” The reported proposal—which followed the August 27 mass shooting at Annunciation Catholic Church in Minneapolis, in which a 23‑year‑old transgender woman killed two children and wounded 21 others before dying by suicide—prompted swift objections from major gun‑rights organizations.

What was reported: According to media accounts, DOJ leadership discussed whether it could use rulemaking authority to declare transgender people mentally ill and thereby remove their Second Amendment rights. Legal experts and advocates noted that Congress has not granted the department a broad power to disarm entire groups on the basis of psychiatric labels.

Existing law and its limits: Federal law already prohibits firearm possession for some people subject to judicial proceedings. Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4), it is a felony for anyone “who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution” to receive or possess firearms. That restriction follows a court or similar adjudication and can result in a permanent loss of gun rights regardless of current condition—an outcome critics call both overbroad and unjust.

A regulation that targeted people solely on the basis of a psychiatric label would be far broader. Population surveys indicate roughly half of Americans will meet criteria for a psychiatric diagnosis at some point in life, and about a quarter in any given year—underscoring how sweeping a diagnosis‑based ban could be.

Due process and red flag laws: Other mechanisms that temporarily suspend firearms rights, such as so‑called “red flag” laws, require a court order before removal and have themselves prompted due‑process concerns from advocates across the political spectrum.

Gun‑rights groups' response: Organizations defending gun rights reacted quickly. The National Rifle Association stated it “does not” and “will not” support “sweeping gun bans that arbitrarily strip law‑abiding citizens of their Second Amendment rights without due process.” The Firearms Policy Coalition warned that, under federal statutes and binding Supreme Court precedent, the government cannot impose a categorical ban on an entire class of peaceable people. Similar objections came from Gun Owners of America, the Second Amendment Foundation, the National Association for Gun Rights, and the Citizens Committee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Constitutional hurdles: Any categorical statutory ban on gun possession for a group such as transgender people would face a steep constitutional test under the Supreme Court's 2022 Second Amendment framework, which asks whether a restriction is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Since that decision, several federal appeals courts have questioned or struck down broad, categorical disarmament laws when applied to specific individuals. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, for example, has emphasized that “nothing in our tradition allows disarmament simply because [someone] belongs to a category of people” Congress has labeled dangerous—and an administrative regulation imposing such a ban would raise still more acute separation‑of‑powers and due‑process concerns.

Bottom line: The DOJ discussions exposed a fraught mix of policy, constitutional law, and political sensitivity. Even supporters of stricter gun‑control responses to mass shootings warned that a regulation singling out transgender people would be legally vulnerable and raise profound civil‑liberty questions.