Dem
47
GOP
53
And now, another story about what's meant to be a big, juicy piece of red meat for the base. It's not a secret that, for Trump and other right-wing politicians, transphobia is the gift that keeps on giving. Not only are most Republicans anti-trans, to a greater or lesser extent, but so too are many independents and Democrats (especially older independents and Democrats, and older people are more likely to vote).
This being the case, Trump and his team are always looking for new anti-trans angles to exploit. After all, you can only get so much mileage out of the dozen or so trans girls who play high school sports. And so, in a move as predictable as the sun rising in the east, the administration is trying to glom on to the recent shooting in Minnesota. The shooter there was ostensibly trans, and there is a well-established belief on the right (and, sometimes, not on the right) that trans people are mentally ill, and that they are unduly prone to commit violent crimes (and, in particular, mass shootings). Taking all of this into account, the Department of Justice is considering a new rule that trans people cannot own guns, based on federal law that bars gun ownership for people "adjudicated as mental defective[s]."
Ripping something like this to shreds is like shooting fish in a barrel, but let's start with the assumptions underlying this line of thought. First, it's not entirely clear that the Minnesota shooter should even be considered trans; Robin Westman certainly wrestled with gender identity, but it's not entirely clear where Westman was at in the final days and weeks of life, and there is some evidence that Westman no longer identified as trans. Even if you do count Westman, then there's that incident, and the 2023 Nashville shooting, and... that's pretty much it for mass shootings from trans people. Two incidents do not a pattern make, and there is abundant evidence that trans people are not disproportionately likely to commit acts of violence (though they ARE disproportionately likely to be VICTIMS of acts of violence).
Now let us move on to the pragmatic aspects of such a policy. It's not like trans people have a scarlet T emblazoned on their foreheads, or they have to wear a trans-flag patch on their clothes to identify them among the members of the general population. Pete Hegseth might think those sound like swell ideas, but that's not how it actually is. So, it would be none too easy to deny guns to trans people, because how can anyone who is selling a gun be sure? The only option would be to haul a trans person into court and, consistent with the law, get a judge to deem them mentally defective. If they are actually mentally defective, then such a judgment may be forthcoming, but that's already the case, with or without a new directive from the White House. And if a U.S. Attorney, like Jeannine Pirro, tries to make an argument for mental defectiveness solely on the basis of the person being trans, well, the American Psychiatric Association and the DSM-V say that being trans is not a mental illness. So, that argument is not going to fly in court, even if the trans person in question threw a sandwich at someone. Alternatively, if someone else tries to assume the power to "adjudicate" mental deficiency (say, the Kennedy-led HHS Department), that opens many, many cans of worms that will end up in court.
And finally, the politics of the policy. It's true that a lot of non-trans Americans are leery of trans people, which is why the girls sports issue proved so salient. However, that also triggered people's instincts in terms of fairness and a level playing field. Targeting the roughly 1½ trans shooters may read a little differently; it may be too obviously an act of political theater. It might also cause some folks to wonder: If we are going to impose gun limits on high-risk populations, why aren't we putting limits on single, white men? Unlike trans people, that group IS disproportionately likely to commit mass shootings.
That leads to another political issue here, the one that is most likely to be a deal-breaker for the Trump administration. The Second Amendment zealots do not like the idea of gun limits of any sort, seeing them as a slippery slope. In this case, they may even be right about that, as it would be pretty questionable to target trans people and not, say, militia members, or people who have been prescribed psychotropic drugs. We suspect that the gun lovers' love of guns far outweighs their dislike of trans people, and they would react badly to such a policy.
For all of these reasons, then, we imagine this proposal will not move past the vaporware stage. That said, given that Team Trump is looking everywhere for gin-up-the-base opportunities, we're not surprised that they at least trial ballooned it. (Z)