Justice Department Considering Ban on Transgendered People Owning Firearms

L

livingston

20×102mm Vulcan
Messages
50,195
Reaction score
137,098
Location
livingston county

Justice Department Considering Ban on Transgendered People Owning Firearms​

Senior officials at the U.S. Department of Justice have held multiple meetings in recent days to consider a possible federal ban of transgendered individuals from owning firearms, Breitbart News has learned.

This legal question of banning firearm ownership for transgendered individuals would focus on whether these people suffering from gender dysphoria are in fact mentally ill and therefore should be denied firearm ownership while they are unstable and unwell. It would be a major escalation to see the federal government curtail Second Amendment protections for a big group of people, but in the case of transgendered people it is a place that many believe makes sense, which is why some top conservatives, such as Turning Point USA’s Charlie Kirk, have said the government should do this.
While any decision is not yet final, the fact these meetings are happening seems to suggest there may be movement inside the Justice Department under Attorney General Pam Bondi towards taking some kind of step here.
www.breitbart.com

Justice Department Considering Ban on Transgendered People Owning Firearms

Senior officials at the U.S. Department of Justice have held multiple meetings in recent days to consider a possible federal ban of transgendered individuals from owning firearms, Breitbart News has learned.
www.breitbart.com www.breitbart.com
 
tirwin1

tirwin1

.475 A&M Magnum
Messages
17,324
Reaction score
47,991
Location
rochester
If the government can claim a group like transgenders are mentally ill and then ban them from owning guns, why can't a democratic administration claim a group (hunters, conservatives, ex-military, etc....) are mentally ill and then ban them frow owning guns?

FWIW I do think transgender people are mentally ill and I do think there is merit to the argument they shouldn't own guns. I just can't see how applying a ban to them won't come back to bite us when the democrats return to power.
 
F

fresch

.338 Win Mag
Messages
8,411
Reaction score
11,185
Location
Syracuse
1776
Mad as a hatter. The boys knew crazy.

Just start holding people accountable for the actions they take. We have laws about laws about laws why more.
If during court it is found out you are a murderer and "tranz" , then you will be sentenced for murder; oh and by the way your "tranz".
Kinda like hate crime, people doing crime don't do it to others because they like them. Sentence them for the crime, he isn't more deader because the murderer hated,
 
FP1201

FP1201

.338 Win Mag
Messages
6,262
Reaction score
10,541
Location
Adams, NY
livingston said:

Justice Department Considering Ban on Transgendered People Owning Firearms​

Senior officials at the U.S. Department of Justice have held multiple meetings in recent days to consider a possible federal ban of transgendered individuals from owning firearms, Breitbart News has learned.

This legal question of banning firearm ownership for transgendered individuals would focus on whether these people suffering from gender dysphoria are in fact mentally ill and therefore should be denied firearm ownership while they are unstable and unwell. It would be a major escalation to see the federal government curtail Second Amendment protections for a big group of people, but in the case of transgendered people it is a place that many believe makes sense, which is why some top conservatives, such as Turning Point USA’s Charlie Kirk, have said the government should do this.
While any decision is not yet final, the fact these meetings are happening seems to suggest there may be movement inside the Justice Department under Attorney General Pam Bondi towards taking some kind of step here.
www.breitbart.com

Justice Department Considering Ban on Transgendered People Owning Firearms

Senior officials at the U.S. Department of Justice have held multiple meetings in recent days to consider a possible federal ban of transgendered individuals from owning firearms, Breitbart News has learned.
www.breitbart.com www.breitbart.com
Click to expand...
Well if we're going to take Citizens Second Amendment Right on the basis of a subjective preposition then we may as well take all of their Rights, and eventually as all Government overreach turns into expansiveness it turns into a slippery slope right into a Pit full of Shit.
I don't care for "trans" people nor condone their life choices, but those choices are theirs and so long as they do not break the Laws of man then those Rights MUST BE held sacred and reserved by the Citizens of America.
* I removed "the Almighty" because God will deal with those problems, the rest we might have to forward via express service.
 
CaseHardened

CaseHardened

.450/400 Nitro Ex
U.S. Military
Messages
11,680
Reaction score
11,847
Location
Danvers, MA
I know it's a bad idea. And hope it never happens.

Gender Dystopia used to bother me, mostly, because children were groomed into it. And using drugs and surgeries on a person under 18 should be prosecuted.

But after these mass murders of children, any sympathy I had ever had for Gender Dystopia individuals is long gone.

Take their guns away.
 
Last edited:
CaseHardened

CaseHardened

.450/400 Nitro Ex
U.S. Military
Messages
11,680
Reaction score
11,847
Location
Danvers, MA
tirwin1 said:
If the government can claim a group like transgenders are mentally ill and then ban them from owning guns, why can't a democratic administration claim a group (hunters, conservatives, ex-military, etc....) are mentally ill and then ban them frow owning guns?

FWIW I do think transgender people are mentally ill and I do think there is merit to the argument they shouldn't own guns. I just can't see how applying a ban to them won't come back to bite us when the democrats return to power.
Click to expand...

Actually. I fully expect Democrat Communists to decide Christians are insane, Muslims not, Trans not.

Because unless we stop them, THEY CAN.
 
Criticalt

Criticalt

.338 Win Mag
Messages
8,643
Reaction score
16,336
Location
WNY
This has bad idea written all over it. Its just a matter of time before ALL groups are considered mentally ill.
How about this.......
You can be involuntary committed to a looney bin if you're a danger to yourself or others.
I believe chopping your dick or tits off puts you in the "danger to yourself" category.
Other than that, we just gotta wait until they snap. As is often said around here,
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
Just stay aware of 6'2 250 pound chick's while you're out and about.
 
SonOfSun

SonOfSun

.308 Win
Messages
4,839
Reaction score
5,978
Location
WNY
To quote Mitch McConnell: “You’ll regret this. And you may regret it a lot sooner than you think.”
 
Darth

Darth

Bunny In Chief
Messages
19,569
Reaction score
24,768
Location
MoCo
Pay close attention. People on this purported pro 2A forum are advocating for stronger gun control than we've seen in any capacity by either party.

This is why i can't run far enough away from "the right" just like the left.

No thank you.
 
Last edited:
spat

spat

.950 JDJ
Messages
30,106
Reaction score
63,543
Location
Formerly Geneseo, NY. Now free in AZ
Implementing this is a terrible idea.

But forcing the left to mount the legal fight to prevent it could be genius.

Pass the law, then let them spend tons of money running it up to SCOTUS and setting precedents that will prevent anything like it in the future.

Specifically structure the government case so that SCOTUS needs to rule that you can't deny anyone the RKBA without a conviction at trial and only for the duration of their incarceration.
 
Cooolone

Cooolone

.338 Win Mag
Messages
6,295
Reaction score
9,744
Location
NY, USA
Simple concept...


*SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED*

Don't have to like it, but there shall be no creation of separation, of establishment of classes, in order to exercise a Right! This includes sexual preferences or other fringe characteristics as defined or attempting to be defined by the Federal Govt!

Rights aren't given to us by the Govt, period!
 
Celt

Celt

.450/400 Nitro Ex
Messages
9,790
Reaction score
20,331
Location
Westchester
tirwin1 said:
If the government can claim a group like transgenders are mentally ill and then ban them from owning guns, why can't a democratic administration claim a group (hunters, conservatives, ex-military, etc....) are mentally ill and then ban them frow owning guns?

FWIW I do think transgender people are mentally ill and I do think there is merit to the argument they shouldn't own guns. I just can't see how applying a ban to them won't come back to bite us when the democrats return to power.
Click to expand...
100% this would be used against other "groups" of people. When the left is in power again they will deem anyone who opposes them as mentally unfit!
 
L

livingston

20×102mm Vulcan
Messages
50,195
Reaction score
137,098
Location
livingston county
Drinkthekoolaid said:
If you can limit trans right to own guns, those rules won't stop there on 1 singular group. 100% will be expanded and abused when Dems get back in power. I am against this because I don't like the precedent it would set. Rights matter.
Click to expand...
If one is declared mentally unstable you are not allowed to posess a gun.. Correct... The question is If one wants to mutlate their body in such an excessively extreme manner are they unstable...
 
thughes

thughes

.44 mag
Messages
971
Reaction score
2,709
Location
Your Mom's house
spat said:
Implementing this is a terrible idea.

But forcing the left to mount the legal fight to prevent it could be genius.

Pass the law, then let them spend tons of money running it up to SCOTUS and setting precedents that will prevent anything like it in the future.

Specifically structure the government case so that SCOTUS needs to rule that you can't deny anyone the RKBA without a conviction at trial and only for the duration of their incarceration.
Click to expand...
This ^

I'd love to see them make an argument that it's unconstitutional to prohibit a whole class of people from exercising a Constitutional Right, based solely upon the actions of a few members of that class. :evil:
 
dwa12479

dwa12479

.338 Win Mag
Messages
7,143
Reaction score
14,681
Location
Dark Side of the Moon
The sarcastic, petty side of me says "Sounds like common sense gun control to me..." lol. I just want to see the leftists lose their minds and actually defend tbe 2A for once. I cant WAIT to hear the double speak on this one. This might be the infringement we need to get a case before SCOTUS.

In all seriousness though, I will never be ok with government declaring a right void of a particular group on a whim. Bad bad idea, very much the start of a slippery slope.
 
Acer-m14

Acer-m14

20×102mm Vulcan
Messages
35,954
Reaction score
38,559
Location
Livingston
Well they take the guns away from VA vets that don't want to balance their checking account

and would rather have someone else do it ..


they opened the doorway , use it ..


I think is funny as hell they are going after the trans like this and while they are at they

might as well ban the 1A and Voting too from the Trans ..

Git er Done ..


LMAO The Left Fighting Against Gun Control ., ..
 
OwnTheRide

OwnTheRide

.223 Rem
Messages
1,301
Reaction score
2,636
Location
Allegany
dwa12479 said:
very much the start of a slippery slope.
Click to expand...
It's not the start, it's a continuation of the path down the slippery slope we are already on:

1. See the question about "involuntary commitment" on the 4473.
2. See the SAFE act giving the state the ability to look into your medical records to determine whether or not to allow you to own firearms.
3. Red Flag laws
4. Accusations of domestic abuse
5. Orders of protection

...so on and so forth...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top