The Department of Justice is allegedly evaluating rules that would prevent transgender individuals from possessing firearms. The justification seems to hinge on the idea that they are categorized as “mentally ill” and, by extension, “unstable.” This rationale, which lacks a solid legal foundation, has drawn criticism from various gun rights organizations.
Interestingly, the reasoning behind disarming transgender individuals aligns with a broader perspective on who falls into the category of “prohibited persons,” a designation that already includes many Americans under current laws.
As I discuss in my new book, these classifications encompass millions who do not actually threaten public safety. For instance, since 1968, gun ownership has been forbidden for illegal drug users, which is a felony that carries a potential prison term of up to 15 years. I gather from survey data that around 20 million Americans—primarily cannabis users—now find themselves in this predicament, yet very few are ever prosecuted for it.
Take the case of Jared Harrison, for example. He was stopped for running a red light in Lawton, Oklahoma, and found with a loaded revolver and some cannabis products. His prosecution was determined by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit, which indicated that the government must prove that non-toxic marijuana users present a legitimate risk, otherwise, it contradicts the Second Amendment.
Several courts, including the 10th Circuit, are questioning the legality of laws that interweave gun control with drug enforcement. Former President Joe Biden, for instance, has maintained that his son, who faced charges for illegal gun possession, deserved punishment, yet his administration defends the legality of the same law that Hunter Biden violated. Ironically, the legislation he endorsed even increased penalties for actions akin to those his son took.
This law asserts that drug users looking to exercise their rights to own firearms are committing crimes severe enough to warrant harsh penalties. Beyond unauthorized gun possession, they could also face multiple felony charges that could collectively lead to decades in prison.
It’s not common for defendants to face the maximum penalties, and often the charges are less severe than the law allows, with many not being prosecuted at all. Still, drug users wishing to own guns could find themselves facing severe repercussions, even if they never combined both activities.
Another example is Patrick Darnell Daniels Jr., who received nearly four years in federal prison after police found guns and cannabis during a routine stop. His conviction related to the Second Amendment was later overturned.
The law also disallows anyone with a previous felony conviction involving incarceration for over a year from possessing firearms. This applies irrespective of the nature or seriousness of the crime. Some federal courts have suggested that this statute could be unconstitutional for non-violent offenders.
Consider Melynda Vincent, a social worker from Utah who, after committing bank fraud in 2008 for a mere $498, finds herself unable to own a firearm even after 17 years.
The ACLU has even pointed out how this “very broad law” fails to address actual risk or propensity for violence. As a law professor noted, many felonies don’t correlate with a particular danger to public safety.
Ironically, this ban could also apply to individuals like former President Trump, who, despite wielding significant power, is prohibited from gun ownership due to a conviction related to documentation fraud.
Moreover, federal law forbids anyone who has undergone involuntary psychiatric treatment from owning a firearm, which means that even those who sought help years ago can’t exercise their right for self-defense decades later.
The proposal to bar transgender individuals from gun ownership may seem legally unfounded, yet it reflects a broader trend of unjustly stripping people of their Second Amendment rights based on speculative risks.
