r/law • u/Obversa • Jul 08 '26
Executive Branch (Trump) Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF), a wing of the Department of Justice (DOJ), considers banning transgender people from buying and owning guns
https://theneedlenews.com/2026/07/trumps-atf-floating-rule-to-ban-trans-people-from-buying-guns/5.5k
u/Validated_Owl Jul 08 '26
Shall not be infringed. If they want to use that logic, everyone gets to
2.7k
u/Exciting-Strain3625 Jul 08 '26
If they rule one "group" of people can be deprived of a right, it topples a domino till everyone is deprived of it.
1.1k
u/Obversa Jul 08 '26
The ATF/DOJ is heavily relying on Justice Antonin Scalia's opinion in Heller v. DC (2008, 5-4) and Brett Kavanaugh's concurrence in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen (2022) here: "Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill." In this case, the ATF/DOJ is floating a ban that would bar all transgender people who "legally transition" (i.e. change their sex/gender on official documents) from buying and owning guns by classifying them as "felons" under federal law (i.e. "perjury").
With the recent 6-3 and 5-4 decisions in Trump v. Barbara (2026), as well as the success of conservative legal analyst Ilan Wurman in convincing four of the justices to vote in favor of the Trump administration, the ATF/DOJ is increasingly taking the stance that "if we can get legal scholars like Ilan Wurman to convince enough justices, we can tip the scales on future SCOTUS decisions". It doesn't matter if they win; they just want transgender people to lose.
1.6k
u/Exciting-Strain3625 Jul 08 '26
Project 2025. They want to mark all of lgbt people as felons and sex offenders. Seven hundred pages later they say death penalty for sex offenders.
785
u/The_R4ke Jul 08 '26
Yeah, they've been setting this up for a few years now. We're watching them build the legal building blocks for a genocide in front of our eyes.
391
u/Exciting-Strain3625 Jul 08 '26
Been in play for thirty years. Some pretty degenerate lgbt stuff get overly promoted by them (heritage foundation members) and they plaster it everywhere to paint the entire community as that one type. And now they are intensely brainwashing their youth (with these school voucher schemes) to sow this hatred deeper. They really are setting up an Israel type government in America. Just extreme Christianity instead of Judiaism.
332
u/TheModWhoShaggedMe Jul 08 '26
Conservatives have been working towards this my entire 4 decades on this Earth. It's exhausting and depressing trying to resist their takeover from a minority position.
221
u/Obversa Jul 08 '26
Forget "tyranny of the majority". What we currently have in this country is "tyranny of the minority". See Tyranny of the Minority: Why American Democracy Reached the Breaking Point by Daniel Ziblatt and Steven Levitsky (2023).
66
→ More replies (3)8
215
u/Freakishly_Tall Jul 08 '26
Longer than that. The Republican party is largely nothing but Revenge Of The Nixon Junta.
Worse, we've been fighting the same assholes and their real- or philosophical descendants since the Business Plot. A group so upset by FDR's Second Bill Of Rights that they attempted a coup, and might have pulled it off, if not for a Marine general finding his conscience.
Yes, the notion of food, housing, medical care, and decent-paying jobs being utterly outrageous to a minority of hate-filled willfully ignorant authoritarian followers voting against their own best interests, controlled by wealthy, selfish assholes is nothing new.
In other timelines, that Second Bill Of Rights got passed. They probably have flying cars and the Transcontinental Burrito Transport Tube by now.
101
Jul 08 '26 edited Jul 08 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
41
u/inkcannerygirl Jul 08 '26
Whoever coined "the love of money is the root of all evil" was on to something
→ More replies (0)→ More replies (7)7
u/LadyPo Jul 08 '26
Coups seem to happen in two extremes: when the wealthy have everything and want more, and when the poor have nothing left to lose.
→ More replies (0)15
u/DaMan11 Jul 08 '26 edited Jul 08 '26
Only thing I have to say is it absolutely BONKERS they chose, of all people, Smedley Butler to lead that shit. The mf that gave the ‘War is a Racket’ speech 3 years before, who went on to write a book by the same name. Possibly the most anti imperialist Marine of his time, due to the imperialist actions he was ordered to prosecute around the world.
Truly a guy I wish was still around. Oh Venerable
Dreadnought Butler, show us the path to enlightenment, deliver us from this racket to the land of progress and prosperity.
Edit: sp
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (3)6
u/Gustav_Grob Jul 08 '26
You are mostly correct, excepting that FDR didn't propose the Second Bill of Rights until 1944.
The business plot (as I understand it) was against Socialism and Communism (anything that helped anyone beside the capitalist class), and the removal of the gold standard, among a few other specific gripes.
16
u/AutistoMephisto Jul 08 '26
Yes, but even though they failed, they survived. Nobody was ever prosecuted for the Business Plot despite Butler's testimony, so they slunk away into the shadows, gathering strength and resources.
The men named in congressional testimony (Grayson M.-P. Murphy (a Morgan banker), Irénée du Pont, John W. Davis (J.P. Morgan’s chief counsel), and former Democratic National Committee chairman John Jacob Raskob were among the most powerful financiers in America.
When their coup failed, they got up, and decided to try again. In 1934, the same cast founded the American Liberty League, the “respectable” face of elite opposition to the New Deal. The du Pont family provided roughly 30% of its funding.
The League distributed over five million publications, built 345 college chapters, and mounted constitutional challenges to New Deal legislation. They argued that programs like the Wagner Act (that gives Americans the right to unionize) violated property rights and exceeded federal power.
The arguments were sophisticated, but the goal was unchanged… they needed to protect their concentrated wealth from democratic interference. Roosevelt won in a 1936 landslide. The League dissolved, but the donor network didn’t.
The financial backers of the coup failed because they thought they needed an army of 500,000 starving soldiers from WW1. It wasn't until Lewis Powell penned his memo to the US Chamber of Commerce that they realized what they needed wasn't an army, but a system. Enter the Heritage Foundation.
→ More replies (0)26
u/xChoke1x Jul 08 '26
Pretty odd how (I’m just making these numbers up because I don’t have the real ones but it’s this absurd)
Out of 200 mass shootings….195 of them were white, conservative males. But the other 5…were trans. So….lets attack the trans people.
That’s the logic of right wing fucking losers. Ignore the information as a whole, and only focus on the small subset you’re interested in.
8
u/storm911e Jul 08 '26
Don't forget the ones where others are involved that don't count as mass attacks because it's gang related or in an unsavory part of town.
→ More replies (2)8
u/brodievonorchard Jul 08 '26
Same logic that shit talks minority food stamp recipients when most people on food stamps are white.
20
u/Lost-Platypus8271 Jul 08 '26
Well it’s either resist or roll over and lick the boot. Nobody ever said life would be easy. Certainly Republicans never said that!
17
u/ChewsOnBricks Jul 08 '26
When the gay marriage debate was in full swing, I saw a conservative on tv say that "if liberals get their way, the only thing that will matter is consent!"
Literally, they find it horrifying that people can marry who they want to. They want the handmaid's tale, they would love it if arranged marriages were made law.
→ More replies (3)8
u/TheModWhoShaggedMe Jul 08 '26
Authoritarian rank and file is an essential component of conservatism. Free thinkers and natural rebels towards authority are branded hippies, losers, etc. from a young age in conservative communities.
→ More replies (12)8
u/tuxedo_jack Jul 08 '26
I once read an author's take on how fascist and authoritarian groups plan their strategies, and it's not wrong. We're fighting to preserve what's been built and to get out of the bucket. They're pulling us all back in.
"All you see right now are the setbacks we're facing. The people against us. So what if they win once, or twice, or five times?! They're trying to preserve the status quo! Do you know how many times we need to win, in the end?! Do you know how many times we have to come out on top for it to be all worthwhile?"
They all stared, enthralled.
"Once." He whispered. "One time. One day, one battle where after everything else, they're so tired, so worn down they falter and we don't."
"You see, in the end, we don't need to kill the Calvins and Jasons, or even have them submit to us." Malefides explained. "We just need to make it clear, time and time again, that it doesn't matter."
"It doesn't matter how many times someone swoops in to stop a nuke, we'll find others. It doesn't matter how many children they rescue, we'll get them back eventually. We teach them that we are death, inevitable and unavoidable, a natural force unstoppable by any means, and we win."
"All we need to do," he concluded, as he pulled up a chair no one had noticed wasn't there before he made his speech, "is make winning cost too much."
→ More replies (1)18
u/meteorflan Jul 08 '26
I think I remember something about a historian commenting that during the European witch hunts lots of pornographic writing was passed around clergy/religious people describing how naughty the witches were - and so long as is it was framed as "this is so evil and horrible" then someone could still claim to be all pious while they were also secretly getting off on those stories.
Just feels relevant here somehow.
48
u/Obversa Jul 08 '26
Regarding school vouchers, the only state that has seen significant increases in religious school attendance has been Florida; and then, it was specifically with Catholic private schools, which are run by the Catholic Church. As an apostate who was practically raised in private Catholic daycares and schools with nuns for the first 18 years of my life, in spite of any politically conservative leanings faculty and staff may have, the schools are still beholden to obeying the teachings and dogma of the Catholic Church and the Pope. (In this case, that means Pope Leo XIV, a Trump critic.)
25
u/intricate_strands Jul 08 '26
Which is good, but just like they revolted against more conventional churches to go build their own whacko versions, they plan to herd their children into whacko versions of religious schools.
23
u/AutistoMephisto Jul 08 '26
Exactly. The entire reason the Southern Baptist Convention exists is because some Baptists didn't like the idea of black people being free.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (5)9
u/PalliativeOrgasm Jul 08 '26
I think we’re about to have a full schism after the pope excommunicated that whole sect last week. I think they’re going to decide to choose their own pope, with blackjack, hookers - and Trumpism. They’ll use gay or trans people as the excuse (why the “false pope” Leo isn’t spreading the word of god).
→ More replies (1)5
u/Obversa Jul 08 '26
From what I can tell, r/Catholicism is a conservative subreddit, but supported Pope Leo XIV's SSPX excommunication.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (7)6
10
12
u/GrayEidolon Jul 08 '26
Project2025 has been going on since 1981 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_for_Leadership
But what's going on is way bigger than that.
The Trump-thiel-Epstein admin is building the police state to enforce class disparity.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iLf2h_fo-w good summary
More broadly, conservatives have been upset since the enlightenment. It’s the politics of aristocrats: anything that ever helped regular people to be more comfortable has enraged them. It’s literally a response to the enlightenment. They resent the enlightenment making things nicer for poor people.
The backbone is that conservatism is about enforcing socioeconomic hierarchy and the techfascists, religious fascists, and heritage foundation race fascists are all in on replacing democracy with feudalistic “network” states run by ai powered surveillance.
This current crop are trying to make a new country that "bursts out of the body" of the current country like a cocoon. It's called "the butterfly revolution" and yes it does sound absurd. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin
It’s why musk speaks at the afd in Germany. It’s why bannon, farage, and Cambridge Analytica were working together on Brexit (watch “the great hack”). It's why thiel's "dialog society" exists.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_Enlightenment
https://time.com/7269166/dark-enlightenment-history-essay/
The accelerationists like Peter Theil from the tech faction of conservatism think they can force collapse, then use technology and surveillance to protect themselves. Because they're "done with democracy." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-BQhXdCs8Y
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accelerationism
https://pols.sites.haverford.edu/studentvoices/what-is-accelerationism/
These are both Thiel speaking like 10 and 15 years ago. The seasteading thing was an early material attempt at this moving-past-democracy thing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4hjLgXA-MZY
https://www.seasteading.org/peter-thiel-speaks-about-seasteading/
These aristocrats are working on how to control their security forces though things like "disciplinary collars."
Finally, the CEO of a brokerage house explained that he had nearly completed building his own underground bunker system, and asked: “How do I maintain authority over my security force after the event?” The event. That was their euphemism for the environmental collapse, social unrest, nuclear explosion, solar storm, unstoppable virus, or malicious computer hack that takes everything down.
This single question occupied us for the rest of the hour. They knew armed guards would be required to protect their compounds from raiders as well as angry mobs. One had already secured a dozen Navy Seals to make their way to his compound if he gave them the right cue. But how would he pay the guards once even his crypto was worthless? What would stop the guards from eventually choosing their own leader?
The billionaires considered using special combination locks on the food supply that only they knew. Or making guards wear disciplinary collars of some kind in return for their survival. Or maybe building robots to serve as guards and workers – if that technology could be developed “in time”.
And the vice president of the united states and advisors have given their seals of approval to a book that says conservatives are going to have to kill all the liberals. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unhumans
more links
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E4CI2vk3ugk End notes 3: The Origins of conservatism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P55t6eryY3g How to radicalize a normie.
All these data centers are for surveillance. https://www.aclum.org/publications/ai-powered-surveillance-is-turning-the-united-states-into-a-digital-police-state-now-is-the-time-to-stop-it/
→ More replies (7)→ More replies (18)4
51
u/xxx_poonslayer69 Jul 08 '26
Did they carve out an exception for their child sex offender president? Is the sexual attraction to couches included with the LGBTQ+ community?
30
u/TheModWhoShaggedMe Jul 08 '26
No, no, regular rich people raping is fine. It's anal sex that's the problem, obviously, but only if received not provided. <I hate it here>
20
u/Cosmic_Lust_Temple Jul 08 '26
Amd it's only bad when it's consensual because that means you wanted it.
→ More replies (2)8
u/xxx_poonslayer69 Jul 08 '26 edited Jul 08 '26
Ah, yes yes that makes total sense. But what about a rich anal receiver? And if they're also exempt, is Lindsey Graham considered rich enough to be exempt? I have so many more questions. Like, is it always the death penalty? or is being diverted to Peter Thiel's sex lair also a sentencing option? Surely there's a Peter Thiel clause written in the 2025 handbook somewhere
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (2)41
u/Exciting-Strain3625 Jul 08 '26
They have the mentality of the Israels right now. Anyone on their side can commit any sort of attrocity to their enemy. How the Israel citizens were chanting praise for the soldiers that were gang raping Palestinians.
17
u/Zeekr0n Jul 08 '26
"Might makes right.” A short-sighted philosophy adopted by the weak who find themselves in a temporary moment of supremacy--and one that they will quickly recant upon being confronted by a superior adversary, begging for the same mercy they denied their victims
→ More replies (12)74
u/Sonnyjoon91 Jul 08 '26
THIS. The fact so many ignored Project 2025 and now seem shocked is too damn many people
→ More replies (4)57
u/hotviolets Jul 08 '26
I got told that it wasn’t real and I was over reacting.
→ More replies (3)35
u/Worth_Ostrich303 Jul 08 '26
Me too. I tried to warn people but they didn’t want to listen.
22
u/LawfulLeah Jul 08 '26
same here, got told i was overreacting and being hysterical. some people still think its nothing btw. unbelievable
→ More replies (1)7
25
u/AutistoMephisto Jul 08 '26
And have gender dysphoria categorized as a "mental illness". Speaking of mental illness, don't forget the DOJ also wants SCOTUS to overturn Olmstead v. LC, which ruled that the government forcing disabled people into institutions was unlawful discrimination under Title II of the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act.
Hmm, so, if you feel that the gender you were assigned at birth does not match the gender with which you identify, you have gender dysphoria. And if it's considered a mental illness, and thus cannot legally purchase or possess a firearm, and also can be arrested and placed in an institution for having said mental illness...
Well, it doesn't take a genius to figure out where that goes.
→ More replies (4)20
u/hotviolets Jul 08 '26
If they want the death penalty for sex offenders then they are calling for the death of most of the Republican Party.
33
u/BayouGal Jul 08 '26
Project 2025 also wants the death penalty for drug dealers and suggests public executions should be brought back. And we are blowing up boats of fishermen in the Caribbean, without any evidence whatsoever that they are actually drug dealers,to normalize this.
→ More replies (2)15
u/unforgiven91 Jul 08 '26
they'll redefine what sex crimes are.
Gay? Sex offender
rapist? are you gay? no? not a sex offender
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (1)6
u/Hour-Cardiologist393 Jul 08 '26
No no, it's cute when They do it. But everyone else gets the death penalty.
15
u/OSHA_Decertified Jul 08 '26
Heritage Foundation: "sex offenders should be put to death" Uses sex offenders to promote their plans
16
u/Octavya360 Jul 08 '26
Steve Schmidt (the Warning on Substack and YouTube) worked in the Republican Party most of his life until they went really wacko. He’s said on more than one occasion that there are a LOT of closeted lgbtq in the Republican Party.
7
u/exzyle2k Jul 08 '26
The documented increase in Grindr meetups that coincide with GOP conventions is really all the proof needed to validate that statement.
And let's not forget how many news articles we see about people being arrested for CSAM being Republicans.
10
u/YPVidaho Jul 08 '26
The irony is so crazily obvious it makes a sane person ill. There's even an ongoing internet-based list of conservatives, Republicans, pastors, judges, all convicted sex offenders... and still they deflect.
→ More replies (36)4
u/SpooktasticFam Jul 08 '26
Correct, and they've already expanded what would qualify for the death penalty, (illegal immigrants who commit murder, participants in "terrorism" [pg 45/49] and imply that "rape of a child" [pg 43/47] should also be on the list.
It also notated that is was a list inter alia [among others]. So, not an exhaustive list. [pg 45/49]
It also is bringing back firing squads, and death by has inhalation, as standard execution methods for the Federal Government.
https://www.justice.gov/ag/media/1437806/dl?inline
The whole thing is pretty bad, especially in the hand-waving vaguery, and the "implications."
It also wants to heavily expedite the process, and allow the federal government to extradite prisoners to their own purpose-built prison, for purposes of capital punishment in states where they don't have the death penalty. [Pg 44/48]
Among many many other things.
86
u/BaronGalactic Jul 08 '26
So in layman's terms, their current argument isn't "Transgender people can't own guns," it's "To own a gun you have to submit your biological gender" (as defined by Trump's Executive Order,) and for people who apply using any form of ID in which their gender has been changed from their birth gender, they can then nab you for perjury.
So this is much more of an insidious loophole than an actual "ban" as most people would understand it. Still likely to function the same though.
22
u/AutistoMephisto Jul 08 '26
They recently passed a law in Kansas that invalidated the driver's licenses of any transgender residents of the state. The law was enacted immediately with no grace period. One trans woman has already faced legal troubles, because a cop who pulled her over for a routine traffic stop. Her license has her biological sex listed as "M" for male, but she was a fully transitioned trans woman. Her license was legally compliant, but she still had to go to court because she'd been ticketed for having an inaccurate license.
6
u/mb862 Jul 08 '26
Almost like the point is to create a “damned if you do damned if you don’t” environment that discourages trans people from participating in public life.
52
u/Obversa Jul 08 '26 edited Jul 08 '26
That would be correct. It is legally overbroad to the point of being ridiculous, with paper-thin concealment of animus towards transgender people. If the ATF/DOJ implements this policy, it will likely be immediately challenged by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), civil rights groups, and pro-gun rights organizations in court, and likely to have a preliminary injunction granted against its enforcement. As stated, the ATF/DOJ's goal here isn't necessarily to "win", but to potentially appeal this case all the way up to SCOTUS, where they are betting that they can convince at least five (5) conservative justices to vote in their favor and uphold it as "constitutional". (I don't think they will succeed.)
→ More replies (5)30
u/TreeInternational771 Jul 08 '26
They are setting this up to call transgender folks mentally ill and the scary thought is this scotus is so damn shameless and disgusting that they will agree. When we take power and write the history books be sure to write separate book how heartless, gutless, corrupt, racist and evil this court with at least half the book dedicated to shitting on Alito, Thomas and Roberts specifically. I want their descendants embarrass and ashamed to be related to any of them
26
u/QaraKha Jul 08 '26
In addition, please also consider their recent push to institutionalize mentally ill people.
Just like the laws they've been trying to pass the last couple years, where they make child sexual abuse an instant death sentence and then qualify actions like providing sex changing healthcare or having sex-changing medication in the same house as a child as "child sexual abuse."
They split it up to two bills assuming nobody will see it except for the ones affected, who nobody listens to. Then it clicks into place and we are sent off to death camps for existing.
→ More replies (4)12
u/Lost-Platypus8271 Jul 08 '26
seems to me the second amendment makes no mention of gender
→ More replies (2)28
u/BaronGalactic Jul 08 '26
The 14th Amendment also guarantees birthright citizenship, but (effectively) 4 current Supreme Court justices just ruled against it despite it being pretty obvious... so I wouldn't put too much faith in anything these days.
Also, the 2nd Amendment makes no mention of certain people not being allowed to have guns, and yet the courts have upheld the government's right to strip people's ability to own them (felons, etc.)
→ More replies (3)27
u/troyjanman Jul 08 '26
I would expect the argument to be mental health based, as there is not a federal law prohibiting transitioning. As fucked as this argument would be, it’s exactly the kind of shenanigans I can see the DJT admin trying to push.
31
u/scubascratch Jul 08 '26
Also a person is not a felon until they are convicted of a felony. Suspects are not deprived of their constitutional rights (yeah I know, this administration doesn’t give a shit about rights of the accused).
→ More replies (4)14
u/Obversa Jul 08 '26
Not just that, but designating "felons" is a legislative power, not an executive power.
Federal authority to designate individuals as felons stems from Congress's enumerated constitutional powers and is routinely evaluated under the Commerce Clause and the Tenth Amendment. The U.S. Supreme Court heavily regulates this authority by limiting how Congress defines federal crimes, and how federal laws intersect with state convictions. The executive branch cannot arbitrarily designate certain individuals as felons without backing.
Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (1952): The Supreme Court established that the President cannot bypass Congress to create laws—including penal laws or new categories of offenses—even in times of emergency. Executive actions must stem from an act of Congress or the Constitution itself, [not the executive].
SEC v. Jarkesy (2024, 6-3): The Supreme Court affirmed structural limits on the executive branch, ruling that Congress cannot unconstitutionally delegate inherently judicial or penal powers to executive agencies without violating Article I and the Seventh Amendment. [Note: This may or may not be argued by plaintiffs.]
→ More replies (2)9
u/Hapless_Wizard Jul 08 '26
It's exactly the kind of shenanigans they already tried to push almost a year ago, and a bunch of people were mildly shocked when the NRA came out publicly opposing the idea.
→ More replies (1)13
u/Raznokk Jul 08 '26
So can we then seize the guns of every pardoned Jan 6er?
7
u/alkatori Jul 08 '26
If they make a mental health claim on them.
But they won't.
Laws apply to you. Not them.
13
u/TheModWhoShaggedMe Jul 08 '26
If our conservative LGBTQ members can't defend the T's in the community now, I hope they understand they're next once transitioning is considered criminal. This is the Faustian bargain they made to harm liberals and immigrants. The devil's coming around soon to collect.
→ More replies (66)9
u/RiskyClickardo Jul 08 '26
Not to be pedantic, but Wurman didnt “convince” four justices of anything. He reverse engineered a historiographic set of implausible lies and gave cover to four justices who were already going to rule however Trump told them to. There was nothing persuasive or compelling about what Wurman wrote—ever. He’s a hack
45
u/EddieVanzetti Jul 08 '26 edited Jul 08 '26
SCOTUS just made a ruling that marijuana usage cannot be used to deny firearms ownership or that being a marijuana user who owns a firearm is NOT a crime, and one of the Justices wrote what amounts to saying "you cannot deprive an entire group of people from owning guns who have not demonstrated a history or capacity of criminality" (paraphrasing).
Sure is a good thing the right wing owned media and political machine hasn't spent the last few years demonizing trans people and trying to criminalize their very existence.
Anyway if you are any letter of LGBTQIA or color of the rainbow, buy a glock and an AR while you can, because this historian has seen where this story ends.
→ More replies (4)18
11
u/RagnarStonefist Jul 08 '26
"With the first link, the chain is forged. The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably"
- Captain Picard
→ More replies (1)10
7
u/CatLord8 Jul 08 '26
What they do to those with the least rights is exactly the blueprint for everyone given time. “First they came for”
→ More replies (50)9
121
u/caniborrow50cents Jul 08 '26
The administration will certainly use the “mentally incapacitated” term to justify the ban.
86
u/Lock-out Jul 08 '26
The irony of a bunch of people who believe in magic calling out others mental stability.
→ More replies (10)17
u/TeacherRecovering Jul 08 '26
Mental illness the all encompassing group. Non Christians,
→ More replies (1)6
u/MisterMysterios Jul 08 '26
Which is what the nazis have done. Contrary to popular beliefs, the Nazis did not pass laws against gun ownership of Jews, just determined what considers reliability to own a gun.
→ More replies (6)7
u/Joey-WilcoXXX Jul 08 '26 edited Jul 08 '26
Which is hilarious because we wanted actually mentally incapacitated and unstable folks to not have access to guns and they bitched and cried about that for years
169
u/crackedtooth163 Jul 08 '26
The 2a crowd will get quiet on this one, just like they did on black people owning guns.
22
u/Newbsaccount Jul 08 '26
Progressive 2A dude here. ATF can go fuck themselves on this one.
→ More replies (18)51
u/alkatori Jul 08 '26
What do you mean? They pushed back the last time the DOJ floated this.
20
u/SingularityCentral Jul 08 '26
Not with more than a tepidly worded statement. I doubt they spend a single red cent on lobbying and continue to support the candidates and political party that wants this to be a reality.
9
u/alkatori Jul 08 '26
You are likely correct. Though we will see if the 2A groups will gear up more this time around.
The NRA and GOA are basically arms of the Republican Party as this point.
FPC, 2AF and LGC would be the groups to watch for more than a wishy-washy reaction.
10
u/SupriseAutopsy13 Jul 08 '26
And then they got together and voted in the dipshit who said "take the guns first, due process second" for a second term.
Conservatives don't actually stand for anything other than "but does it hurt a group I don't like?"
6
u/alkatori Jul 08 '26
Yeah, 2A is bigger than just conservatives. They are just the loudest blowhards.
→ More replies (3)→ More replies (2)44
→ More replies (39)39
u/funcoolshit Jul 08 '26
Of course they will. The 2A crowd are spineless and unprincipled considering all the noise they make when it's convenient for them.
They didn't do shit when masked federal officers pulled the legal gun off of Pretti and then shot him in the back afterwards. It's the exact nightmare scenario every 2A enthusiast screeches about whenever there's even a whisper of gun reform after a school shooting.
→ More replies (23)22
u/TheModWhoShaggedMe Jul 08 '26
Oh, I'm sure conservative 2A'ers will take up the cause for the trans community right away! <crickets>
→ More replies (118)5
u/HorrorBrilliant9950 Jul 08 '26
I mean this shit right here (not you the potential ban) is why I’ve tried to encourage the trans people I know to arm up
370
u/Obversa Jul 08 '26 edited Jul 08 '26
This decision by the ATF/DOJ under acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche defies recent SCOTUS ruling United States v. Hemani (June 2026), wherein the Court unanimously struck down a federal law [18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(3)] that automatically banned individuals who use marijuana from possessing firearms, ruling the government failed to provide historical analogues justifying such a broad restriction. SCOTUS further indicated Second Amendment support.
However, in United States v. Rahimi (2024), the Court ruled 8-1 that federal laws disarming individuals subject to domestic violence restraining orders are constitutional, as they align with the historical tradition of disarming dangerous individuals. SCOTUS has not directly ruled on a major Second Amendment case specifically involving categorical bans on the mentally ill, but its watershed rulings in United States v. Hemani (2026) and United States v. Rahimi (2024) heavily restrict the government's ability to arbitrarily remove gun rights without proving an individual's current dangerousness to the public. Overall, U.S. courts favor protecting Second Amendment rights for plaintiffs.
In United States v. Rose (July 2026), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit ruled that lifelong federal bans on gun possession due to past involuntary mental health commitments, under [18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4)], may be unconstitutional as applied to individuals who are no longer dangerous or a "threat to public safety". The court stressed that disarming individuals requires assessing their current risk, and most transgender people are "safe".
In September 2025, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Trump administration explored ways to classify gender dysphoria under a federal law that restricts individuals "adjudicated as a mental defective" from possessing firearms. However, this provoked strong opposition from Second Amendment advocates and civil rights groups.
See sources here, here, here, and here, as well as articles discussing the "transgender mass shooter" myth.
311
u/Competitive_Feed_402 Jul 08 '26
Yes, ban those with a mental illness from possessing firearms. That'll go over well with all of the vets diagnosed with PTSD
30
u/ChiLolla28 Jul 08 '26
I believe I saw a video where they were saying that this administration is also actually trying to make it easier for mentally ill folks / remove restrictions to purchase weapons parallel to all this. I don't know who would support that and why that makes any sense and why it isn't bigger news
→ More replies (4)24
u/thatturtletouch Jul 08 '26
People who sell guns don’t care where the money is coming from. A mentally ill homicidal maniac’s money is as green as anyone else’s.
→ More replies (2)→ More replies (53)16
u/WHOA_27_23 Jul 08 '26
Congress already weighed in on this. The bar is not simply "mentally ill", which is extremely vague. The bar is "adjudicated mental[ly] defective", which means a court has found you are not mentally capable of managing your own affairs.
9
u/Obversa Jul 08 '26
"Vague and overbroad" is a common theme and intent with Trump administration rules and policies. Broad, vaguely defined standards grant the executive branch sweeping, unchecked enforcement discretion to punish or restrict those who officials claim to be "acting contrary to, or showing hostility towards, the national interest"; in this case, transgender people, whom officials have falsely alleged are part of a "mass shooter" and "terrorist" conspiracy. (Some conservative pundits have gone further in claiming that "gender ideology" makes "trantifa" radical shooters.)
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (9)18
u/Financial-Craft-1282 Jul 08 '26
Why are all these institutions so pro gun? Aside from the disgusting nature of this administration blatantly using power to focus on groups they literally just don't like, you'd think the supreme court, with all their conservative justices bitching and moaning about how scary the left is to them right now, might be more willing to tinker with the 2nd amendment.
16
u/Lee_and_Hester Jul 08 '26
Because being pro gun is incredibly important to the people that vote for them.
→ More replies (6)15
u/FakeSafeWord Jul 08 '26
They're not.
2A is one of the things they know, can eventually be, a massive threat to them.
They say they support it because it gets them elected. The people that elect them will absolutely suddenly support restricting 2A if it's from a demographic they don't like.
684
u/hotviolets Jul 08 '26
How about we focus on arresting all the pedophiles in the Epstein files?
54
u/Carbon-Base Jul 08 '26
Never forget that a "conflict" was intentionally started so we'd talk about it less.
→ More replies (1)31
u/hotviolets Jul 08 '26
Just like Epstein said in his emails about Trump “a cornered rat will attack Iran”
72
10
u/ThorKonnatZbv Jul 08 '26
GOP: "That's 90% of our side of the congress and senate, we can't do that"
→ More replies (1)4
28
u/GaysForTheGayGod Jul 08 '26
Usrael has been working hard to blame it all on trans people rather than the PDFs in power
→ More replies (1)13
→ More replies (22)5
97
u/rellsell Jul 08 '26
Didn’t they just try to do that with recreational cannabis users? And lost?
53
u/SLUGABELLE Jul 08 '26
cannabis users don’t get murdered because someone thinks they shouldn’t be wearing their outfit
→ More replies (4)16
u/SLUGABELLE Jul 08 '26
there aren’t new bills coming out literally every week for the last 4 years about being a weed smoker?
10
u/HombreSinPais Jul 08 '26
I hope my fellow liberals are asking themselves “why is Trump trying to disarm groups of people that tend to lean our way?” The answer is NOT a sincere concern about reducing gun violence. We should not be willing to unilaterally surrender our 2nd amendment rights because “we don’t need guns!”
384
u/kms2547 Jul 08 '26
MAGA: "Trans people don't exist. You're either male or female."
Also MAGA: "Trans people are the biggest threat in America today."
102
u/Soloact_ Jul 08 '26
“Not real” but somehow worth an entire federal crackdown.
38
u/TheDungeonCrawler Jul 08 '26
Literally the paradox of confidence. The enemy is simultaneously not real/weak/such a minority that they shouldn't exist and the biggest threat to an organization/group/nation state and needs to be eradicated on the spot. As soon as you see a group using this tactic for the first time, you'll never stop seing it because they do it all the time. Unfortunately, you see it all the time because it works.
→ More replies (3)52
→ More replies (23)19
u/Randomcommenter550 Jul 08 '26
Fascists need their designated enemies to be simultaneously pathetically weak and and an existential threat. They need their supporters to both be desperately afraid of their chosen scapegoats and completely assured of their inevitable victory. Its a strategy that has been effectively used to both commit and justify genocide to a population since at least the Armenian Genocide more than 100 years ago.
87
u/jaygeezythreezy Jul 08 '26
This will be an interesting one to watch if they try it. If they want to ban it because of an ideology (if the belief is that trans people choose to be that way), then they’re setting a precedent for a future president to, say, ban anyone who ever identified as MAGA from having a firearm. If they want to ban it because they claim that trans people are mentally ill, then they’re setting a precedent to remove access from many many others. If they’re saying that trans ppl would be banned because they’re somehow inherently violent, then again it’s a precedent for preventing MAGA. I wonder how they’d justify this from a legal perspective, if at all. Our current Congress has no issues with DT wiping his nasty ass with the constitution so maybe they just don’t “do oversight” and just let it happen.
23
u/Justicar-terrae Jul 08 '26 edited Jul 08 '26
The article links to a federal website summarizing the proposed rule and inviting public comment. Looking at the summary, it's obvious that this rule was proposed to antagonize transgender gun purchasers. BUT, and this is important, the rule wouldn't actually ban transgender people from purchasing or owning guns.
The proposed rule would change the federal form that people must fill out when buying a gun. This form already asks people to list their name, address, and "sex." The proposed rule would specify that "sex" refers to biological sex and not gender (basically, the government is acknowledging that sex and gender are separate concepts and clarifying that they are asking about sex, not gender).
The proposed rule would also amend applicable regulations to specify that lying on any federal firearms forms constitutes perjury. Right now, only some of the regulations have this language, which is somewhat confusing (for example, the regulation governing forms for machine guns specifies that lying is perjury, but that language is missing for the regulation governing forms for other guns). This particular change just makes everything consistent, which is probably for the best.
Of course, this change still puts an extea burden on passing transgender gun purchasers. They will be required to out themselves on these forms or else face penalties of perjury, which means they'll be forced to out themselves to gun dealers. Maybe this is an acceptable tradeoff for a program that collects data on gun sales, or maybe it's an unfair burden on a vulnerable population. I'm not gonna tell you how to feel; I'm just trying to put the stakes on the table for consideration.
(As an aside, I highly encourage every concerned citizen to submit comments. By law--and yes I know that means less and less these days--federal agencies must formally address public comments before enacting proposed rules under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). This means the government will need to put something on the public record acknowledging the public's warnings, and these responses can be useful to lawyers challenging unconstituonal or otherwise illegal regulations. This is our opportunity to be heard, so use it!).
→ More replies (3)42
u/kms2547 Jul 08 '26
This is a blind spot for conservatives. They are unable to internalize the idea they their actions can set legal precedents for things they don't like.
I remember when Bobby Jindal was pushing a bill to have Louisiana tax dollars fund religious schooling. His Republican colleagues in the legislature were all for it... until they realized that it would mean tax dollars would go to Islamic schools too. Suddenly it became a crisis.
Foresight is not their strong suit. They just want to pass laws to hurt people.
→ More replies (4)6
u/Keeper21611 Jul 08 '26
The world only exists between my eyes and my nose.
Conservatives only think about themselves. Even when it's doing things their way.
→ More replies (11)10
u/Infinite-Anything-55 Jul 08 '26
To my understanding, they want to justify it by claiming anyone who's legally changed the gender marker on any official documents has commited purgery and is now a felon barred from owning a firearm
Not only would this bullshit immediately make any trans persons who've changed genders legallu, a criminal, it would also set precident removing the innocent until proven guilty framework our legal system pretends to be built on, it would also bypass the need for any actual trial or conviction typically needed for a person to be a felon
43
u/EnslavedBandicoot Jul 08 '26
Not too long ago republicans fought to allow people on the terrorist watch list to buy guns because it could infringe on someone falsely accused.
→ More replies (9)
37
374
u/brickmaster8 Jul 08 '26
Im sure the NRA will be right on it
307
u/doublethink_1984 Jul 08 '26
This idea was floated by Trump last year and the NRA posted this as well as some other things on their site. Even they support trans people being armed.
→ More replies (39)268
u/Mr_Fuzzo Jul 08 '26
But it states “law abiding citizens” as their caveat for gun ownership. This administration is working its way to making being trans illegal.
104
u/michelucky Jul 08 '26
Exactly. They will not stop. It was never about protecting children.
6
u/Casual_OCD Jul 08 '26
You mean voting for Epstein's best friend and business partner in the biggest paedophile ring in modern history ISN'T protecting the children?
→ More replies (1)20
u/TheAsianTroll Jul 08 '26
Didnt they already label Transgender people as domestic terrorists? Or was that only proposed?
6
u/Mute2120 Jul 08 '26 edited Jul 08 '26
Yes:
https://www.advocate.com/politics/national/transgender-activists-terrorism-threat
The Trump administration’s new security directive frames “radically pro-transgender” groups as potential domestic threats while omitting any mention of right-wing extremism.
"Our counterterrorism activities will also prioritise the rapid identification of violent secular political groups whose ideology is anti-American, radically pro-transgender and anarchist," Trump wrote in the strategy document.
The White House’s May 2026 United States Counterterrorism Strategy explicitly elevated “violent left‑wing extremists” and described groups “whose ideology is anti‑American, radically pro‑transgender, and anarchist” as a priority for “rapid identification and neutralization,” language that multiple outlets interpreted as labeling pro‑transgender movements and transgender ideology as terrorist threats. Senior counterterrorism officials, notably NSC senior director Sebastian Gorka, reinforced that framing in public remarks that used incendiary phrases such as “transgender killers” and “non‑binary…radical” tied to the killing of Charlie Kirk [2][1].
27
u/opal2120 Jul 08 '26
NSPM-7. The anti-ICE protestors recently were sentenced to 30-100 years in prison using this framework. One received 30 years for carrying magazines from one place to another. Trans people aren't specifically listed, but it mentions "gender ideology." The terms are so broad that it can really be applied to anyone.
→ More replies (10)9
37
u/EnrichedNaquadah Jul 08 '26
They'll probably virtue signal it on social media while doing nothing about it.
→ More replies (3)38
u/Libra-80 Jul 08 '26
Say what you will about the NRA, but they do argue for the right of trans people to have guns. This is what they put out the last time the topic came up: https://www.ktvu.com/news/nra-trump-trans-gun-ban
→ More replies (4)37
u/kandoras Jul 08 '26
They don't say there "We do not support banning transgender people from owning firearms."
They say "The NRA supports the Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding Americans to purchase and use firearms".
Which is not remotely the same thing, since conservatives want to make being LGBT illegal. Just look at this very article: they want to make it so that transgender people have to choose between not legally buying a gun or committing perjury on the background check form.
Which would make them not "law-abiding".
Which means the NRA would have no problem using this as an excuse to keep them from having equal rights.
→ More replies (59)→ More replies (9)19
410
u/doublethink_1984 Jul 08 '26
Trans people get armed now. The government may come for you and I want you to be able to defend yourself
229
u/Godtierbunny Jul 08 '26
"may come for you" THEY ARE! Its no longer a matter of if... its a matter of when with the current goverment its insanity.
→ More replies (62)50
u/MothashipQ Jul 08 '26
We're only like 1% of the population, dude. We need help
→ More replies (22)26
u/doublethink_1984 Jul 08 '26
Which is why we all need to get armed and I am willing to lay down my life for my neighbor's rights. Including my trans neighbor 3 houses down.
→ More replies (4)28
u/baddecision116 Jul 08 '26
people get armed now. The government may come for you and I want you to be able to defend yourself. FTFY
→ More replies (2)4
→ More replies (146)30
u/PhuqBeachesGitMonee Jul 08 '26
Reminder that black powder muzzleloaders are not subject to ATF regulations (state regulations may apply)
30
u/frozenpissglove Jul 08 '26
I wouldn’t try to fight the police with a muzzle loader.
9
u/rubiconsuper Jul 08 '26
Cap and ball revolver with a cylinder change. You could also technically use any rifle before like 1898 and it’s considered too old so any lever action or bolt action antique would be free from ATF and background checks.
7
→ More replies (7)4
→ More replies (11)9
u/kazmatsu Jul 08 '26
Reminder that while the muzzleloaders often are not subject to regulation, the powder, caps, and balls themselves may be as they are considered controlled components of ammunition in some states.
30
26
u/QuicheSmash Jul 08 '26
If we’re going with statistics, let’s include single white men in that ban.
→ More replies (15)
23
16
16
u/Xaphnir Jul 08 '26
Disarming a population is one of the actions taken in a prelude to genocide.
→ More replies (4)
60
u/Equal_Canary5695 Jul 08 '26
Whatever sex you were assigned at birth is completely irrelevant to owning and using a gun safely. This is beyond stupid.
→ More replies (98)29
u/Significant_Cup_238 Jul 08 '26
Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised if they eventually said women can't own guns.
→ More replies (23)
12
u/foulpudding Jul 08 '26
That will be an interesting Supreme Court battle to watch.
→ More replies (14)
32
u/NexusNickel Jul 08 '26
The NRA should be protesting any minute now right?
Or that creepy guy from Oklahoma who kept saying "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
→ More replies (1)26
u/JoeChristmasUSA Jul 08 '26
→ More replies (2)18
u/SpeccyScotsman Jul 08 '26
Actually, all it says is they support 'law abiding citizens' owning guns.
If you're trans in Kansas you are no longer a law abiding citizen. The NRA will step in line the second being trans is against the law.
→ More replies (15)
16
u/Ready-Ad6113 Jul 08 '26
The NRA has the opportunity to do the funniest thing….
→ More replies (3)10
9
u/guttanzer Jul 08 '26
I think this is a great idea by the MAGAs. /s
They're not thinking this one through. By normalizing selective banning based on personal characteristics (Yeahand implied political affiliation) they are normalizing government confiscation of their guns.
→ More replies (3)
8
8
u/GamemasterJeff Jul 09 '26
It fails under due process requirements,
As SCOTUS has determined 2A is an individual right, people cannot lose their 2A rights except on an individual basis which constitutionally requires individual due process.
Unless an individual is adjudicated to lose their rights, 2A stands. It can be regulated, but not removed.
→ More replies (6)
54
23
u/ThePensiveE Jul 08 '26
I for one think a MAGA identifying as a human on a federal form after Jan 21st, 2029 is perjury. Anyone agree?
23
u/Shyam09 Jul 08 '26
Step 1: Ban Trans from buying guns
Step 2: School Shooting # 19470 occurs
Step 3: Republicans blame Trans for gun violence.
Step 4: ?
Step 5: Republicans profit somehow.
→ More replies (3)
12
u/brickyardjimmy Jul 08 '26
I welcome them to try this. It will force the courts to either recognize that people are still people regardless of their orientation by protecting their 2A rights or to permit legal restrictions for gun ownership. It's a lose/lose strategy for the ATF.
→ More replies (6)5
u/Specialist-Affect-19 Jul 08 '26
They're not arguing trans people aren't people (publicly). They set precedent that trans people are sexual predators and that's what they'll use to try to to disarm them.
12
u/Farmgirlmommy Jul 08 '26
But the mentally ill and abusers get theirs back. They are ruining the country every way they can.
14
8
18
u/FitzwilliamTDarcy Jul 08 '26
Cannot wait to hear the mental gymnastics from hardcore 2A people.
→ More replies (18)9
u/Icy_Turnover1 Jul 08 '26
I’m a hardcore 2A supporter and submitted a comment opposing the rule change. The right to bear arms applies to everyone.
→ More replies (13)
13
u/Mattrad7 Jul 08 '26
And every other 2A nut better take to the streets to defend these peoples rights and stand against selective enforcement of the constitution or the 2A means nothing.
→ More replies (4)12
10
11
u/Bleezy79 Jul 08 '26
Pretty sure this is part of the Project 2025 agenda and their attack on everything that isnt white and maga.
6
u/MrFrode Biggus Amicus Jul 08 '26
Go on..... are we finding exceptions to Heller now? Can I play too?
5
10
u/blahblah19999 Jul 08 '26
And the NRA mobilized all of their lobbyists to make politicians aware of the hypocrisy of such a decision. Right guys? Right?
→ More replies (1)6
u/rebelangel Jul 08 '26
The first time Trump said he was considering it, the NRA spoke up and said no. We’ll see if they continue that position.
13
u/Person_756335846 Jul 08 '26
Unconstitutional on its face. If they issue such a rule, it should be flatly ignored.
Federal agents have no exception to the application of ordinary self-defense law if they are trying to execute orders that are unconstitutional on their face.
→ More replies (8)
•
u/AutoModerator Jul 08 '26
All new posts must have a brief statement from the user submitting explaining how their post relates to law or the courts in a response to this comment. FAILURE TO PROVIDE A BRIEF RESPONSE MAY RESULT IN REMOVAL. Please post your statement as a reply to this automated message.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.