Senior Justice Department officials are weighing proposals to limit transgender people’s right to possess firearms, according to two officials familiar with the internal discussions.
  • FreshParsnip@lemmy.ca
    1·
    2 days ago

    How can they ban transgender people from something if transgender people don’t officially exist?

  • Furbag@lemmy.world
    22·
    3 days ago

    A republican shoots up a school and nobody sees any issue with Republican ideology, but the second a trans person does we’ve gotta take away the guns, right?

    Lefties and trans folk, arm up. If you haven’t bought your piece yet, start the application process. Once you have it, it becomes almost impossible for them to take it away by force.

    • GreenBottles@lemmy.world
      7·
      3 days ago

      I think you mean the only way they’ll take it is by force, and they will if they choose to do so. You aren’t going to stop a SWAT team (or worse.)

      • nomy@lemmy.zipEnglish
        5·
        3 days ago

        It’s not about stopping a specific incident. It’s about sowing enough fear in their little piggy hearts that they think twice.

        Personally I’m more worried about a caravan of lifted F250s with MAGA flags rolling through my neighborhood but everyones threat model is a little different.

  • floofloof@lemmy.ca
    1021·
    4 days ago

    In case anyone’s in any doubt about whether there’s any factual basis for this:

    Mass shooters are not disproportionately transgender, contrary to claims

    This CNN article states it well:

    Such a move would represent a dramatic escalation of the Trump administration’s fight against the rights of transgender Americans.

    That’s it. This is just the fascists finding another way to victimize trans people, because they enjoy doing that and it keeps the morons’ attention diverted from real problems.

    And this bit is also good in the article (warning: disgusting quotes from Trump admin people):

    The goal of the potential ban, according to the Justice official, is “to ensure that mentally ill individuals suffering from gender dysphoria are unable to obtain firearms while they are unstable and unwell.”

    Because gender dysphoria is included in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, also called the DSM, it is diagnosed as a mental disorder. (The DSM is the handbook used by health care professionals as the authoritative guide in diagnosing mental disorders.)

    But the gender incongruence – having a gender identity that’s not the one assigned at birth – isn’t what makes gender dysphoria a mental disorder. Having clinically significant dysphoria around the incongruence is what makes it a disorder.

    That’s surprisingly nuanced and well informed for an article on a mainstream news site.

    • solrize@lemmy.ml
      36·
      4 days ago

      From what I understand, people with mental disorders (e.g. taking anti-anxiety meds) can still own guns. The threshold for being disallowed is if the person has been involuntarily institutionalized. So even if you have some kind of mental health crisis and check yourself in, that’s voluntary so it doesn’t prohibit you. It sounds hard to fit gender dysphoria into that framework.

      OTOH apparently you’re prohibited if you’ve used pot in the past year, so maybe they’ll expand that to include vaccinations.

      • floofloof@lemmy.ca
        25·
        4 days ago

        The logical direction this is going is that they want to do something bad and Nazi-ish to trans people. I hope it doesn’t go that far, but they’re rounding up other people already so people need to be ready for a fight.

  • Buffalox@lemmy.world
    69·
    4 days ago

    It makes sense if you don’t think about it. Which apparently the DOJ never did.
    It’s all about creating enemies the ignorant bigots can stand together against.
    USA is a disgusting society.

    • andros_rex@lemmy.worldOP
      52·
      4 days ago

      It’s shaping up to declare us all mentally incompetent so that they can institutionalize us. They won’t stop here.

      • bobs_monkey@lemmy.zip
        23·
        4 days ago

        It’s a stepping stone. First they’ll target trans people, than anyone LGBTQIA+, then minorities, then anyone with liberal views, then anyone who looks weird to them. That was the purpose of that EO dipshit signed a few weeks back directing is admin to explore how to institutionalize anyone deemed mentally incompetent. All they have to do is declare “x group” is mentally ill and then they’ll round em all up. It’s fucked.

      • Buffalox@lemmy.world
        19·
        4 days ago

        What a nightmare, and AFAIK no country will accept trans people from USA as refugees (yet).
        I hope you have options.

        • not_that_guy05@lemmy.world
          151·
          4 days ago

          I think Canada does from what they reported of asylum sellers from the US and mostly were trans.

          I hope if shit pops off they can send us care packages from the north.

          • Warl0k3@lemmy.world
            15·
            4 days ago

            Last I checked (last week? Does time mean anything anymore?) canada doesn’t want poor trans refugees more than any other country. A few people have gotten in, but the vast majority of applicants are being denied asylum.

            • missfrizzle@discuss.tchncs.de
              3·
              4 days ago

              we’re a good deal, if anyone wants to take us. a lot of us are reeeaaallyy good at science, math and programming. like the Jews fleeing Nazi Germany were pretty great for the countries who took them in as refugees.

                • missfrizzle@discuss.tchncs.de
                  3·
                  4 days ago

                  we’re not all network engineers! there’s also uh… rust and haskell programmers, reverse engineers, hardware engineers, category theorists and topologists, uh… biochemists and physicists probably?

                  also there’s not like, loads of trans people. that’s why we’re so easy to attack.

          • gAlienLifeform@lemmy.world
            10·
            4 days ago

            Source for that claim? I’m pretty sure Canada is unfortunately still very backwards on granting asylum to people who need it (like most countries in the world are), but I’d love to be wrong about that.

    • tidderuuf@lemmy.world
      14·
      4 days ago

      There was a convicted criminal now representative in my state that has a YouTube video out of her firing an assault weapon. She was the lead sponsor of the bill that banned assault weapons in our state. On top of that because of her past convictions it is illegal for her to be in possession of a firearm.

      It only makes sense if you don’t look at the shit show behind the curtains.

    • InputZero@lemmy.world
      3·
      3 days ago

      Ah see you’re making a common mistake when reading the law. Republican’s shall not be infringed, Democrats shall be infringed. It’s a common mistake to assume the Republicans will respect others rights, they don’t. They want all the rights for themselves and laws to apply to everyone else.

  • DeathByBigSad@sh.itjust.works
    132·
    3 days ago

    Dems be like: “I allow it”

    Remember: “Under no pretext should arms and ammunition be surrendered; any attempt to disarm the workers must be frustrated, by force if necessary.” -Karl Marx

    Armed Minorities are harder to oppress.

  • missfrizzle@discuss.tchncs.de
    25·
    4 days ago

    welp, that tears it. time to buy my first gun, while I still can. I’m not a big fan of guns but fuck if I’m going to let myself and my community be disarmed by the fascists. I’m not going quietly if they send us to the camps.

    • Itdidnttrickledown@lemmy.world
      11·
      3 days ago

      If you do and have not used one before please get training in the proper operation of it. Even if its from a book. Practice until you are comfortable with it. Otherwise you may end up shooting yourself or someone you care about by accident. You should know how it works and how to break down and clean it yourself.

        • Itdidnttrickledown@lemmy.world
          2·
          1 day ago

          Good. I started learning when I was six. I had to of course relearn many of the things I was taught as a child. I used to own nearly thirty firearms. No reason really. I just enjoyed shooting them. At targets. I didn’t like to hunt. Over time I sold them all down to two. One is the first firearm I every bought myself. The other is the first gun my dad ever gave me. It jammed and the feed tube was maligned and he couldn’t fix it. He bought another and gave the bad one to me. I broke it down when my parents were not around and fixed it. I haven’t fired more than a dozen rounds in the last fifteen years. I really hope I don’t have to fire one ever again.

    • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
      20·
      4 days ago

      Which is often one of the big points.

      Actually banning firearms purchasing is the kind of mess that “Universal 2FA” supporters* support up until they realize the logistics of what it would entail and quickly bounce back because it might impact white people.

      But what does happen is the affected groups see the threat of a ban. So those who are particularly scared rush out to buy guns while they can (and so do the people who want them dead). Which bumps up sales and makes the firearms industry happy.

      But it also means cops have an excuse to assume every single trans person is packing a machine gun. So no knock raids and executions increase.

      *: Except for basically the select few gun nuts like Karl at inRange (Kasarda?) who actually genuinely believe everyone should have the right to own a gun and has gotten shit on and shunned by much of the “firearms community” for expressing these thoughts. With respect to trans people, even.

        • NuXCOM_90Percent@lemmy.zip
          8·
          4 days ago

          Its 'second amendment for all" or “second for all”. I dunno, they change their Movement’s branding every time a company decides to be ridiculously bigoted and they have to make it clear “Second amendment for everyone except those people”

          • betterdeadthanreddit@lemmy.worldEnglish
            5·
            4 days ago

            2A4E, maybe? Just found that one but there might be others. I knew what you were getting at but enjoyed the idea of 2-factor authentication nerds starting with something they know and something they have but adding in a something to keep the something they have from being taken away from them.

  • Professorozone@lemmy.world
    201·
    3 days ago

    How would this stop them? Couldn’t they just use the same gun show/online loopholes (the many way ways to acquire a gun in America)everyone else does?

    EDIT: changed the phrasing to more accurately reflect the reality to satisfy people’s dependence on nitpicking details at the cost of understanding the actual point.

    • Event_Horizon@lemmy.world
      27·
      4 days ago

      Probably. I think this is more about providing an excuse for jailing any trans who choose to own a firearm, rather than stopping them

    • lando55@lemmy.zip
      71·
      4 days ago

      Serious question: do you believe that you can purchase a firearm from a commercial dealer online or at a gun show without regulation? Because in most cases, that simply isn’t true.

      • Professorozone@lemmy.world
        4·
        4 days ago

        I’ll admit I’m not educated on the subject but it was my understanding that there is a loophole for gun shows.

        In a country where there are more guns than people, I don’t believe the barriers to entry for gun ownership for someone who really wants one are substantial. So fundamentally, yes, I do believe this.

        • bigfondue@lemmy.world
          11·
          4 days ago

          The loophole is for private sales. A person can sell their personal firearms to another person without going through a licensed dealer, which means no background check. A gun dealer at a gun show needs to do a background check, but if someone just wants to sell some of their guns at the show, they can just take the cash no questions asked. It applies to GunBroker too, which is like ebay for guns.

          • tux7350@lemmy.world
            1·
            3 days ago

            Yeah but even with gun broker it depends on the state your buying in. Most cases they will ship the gun to your local FFL, where you then still have to go through all the paperwork to get the gun released.

          • Professorozone@lemmy.world
            12·
            3 days ago

            Don’t private sale happen at gun shows? And don’t you find it a little silly that you are criticizing the detail of HOW this is done while missing the bigger picture of how easy it is to get a gun in America.

            Here are me to edit that post to suit you pedantry.

    • lando55@lemmy.zip
      1·
      3 days ago

      I didn’t want to spark a semantic debate, I am genuinely curious how people perceive firearm sales and acquisition in the US.

      In my experience of having purchased and sold a few guns over the years, it’s not quite as straightforward as most would believe. The laws vary by state, but in my cases all private sales (even at gun shows) are subject to background checks facilitated by an FFL holder (think gun store or pawn shop) and any applicable waiting periods.

      That’s not to say back-alley deals don’t still occur and that unregulated states do a great job of tracking ownership, but the risk that private firearm sales and straw purchases pose are largely mitigated by the fact that most people don’t want to have their name linked to a firearm that was sold to some unsavory individual.

  • rayyy@lemmy.world
    7·
    3 days ago

    Where is the NRA? First trans then unpardoned felons, the homeless, the unemployed poor people. The list goes on. Once in place, adding another group will not be questioned.

    • Scrizzle@lemmy.zip
      7·
      3 days ago

      The NRA already said they cannot support this and stand against the sweeping ban of firearms.

      Per their tweet:

      The Second Amendment isn’t up for debate.

      The NRA supports the Second Amendment rights of all law abiding Americans to purchase, possess and use firearms.

      NRA does not, and will not, support any policy proposals that implement sweeping gun bans that arbitrarily strip law-abiding citizens of their Second Amendment rights without due process.

      Sep 05 2025 Source

        • DNS@discuss.online
          3·
          3 days ago

          You mean the NRA is a golden funnel that received money from Russia to funnel into republican politicians to buy their vote to promote Russian interests.

    • iridebikes@lemmy.world
      3·
      3 days ago

      They do this and the motives for violence only increase. How long until the next high profile assassination?

  • TipRing@lemmy.worldEnglish
    6·
    3 days ago

    Trans people are statistically underrepresented among mass shooters. If we are targeting high risk demographics we should start with white men.