The Department of Justice is considering a sweeping new prohibition that would block firearms purchases by individuals who identify as transgender, a response officials say is tied to the Aug. 27 massacre at Annunciation Catholic School in Minneapolis. In that attack, Robin Westman—a biological male who identified as female—opened fire during a Mass attended by schoolchildren, killing two and injuring 21 before taking his own life. A DOJ spokesperson told the Daily Caller News Foundation the department is “actively evaluating options” to address “patterns of violence” among people with specific mental-health and substance-abuse challenges, while stopping short of detailing a concrete rule or timeline.

An official quoted by CNN framed the emerging concept this way: the goal is “to ensure that mentally ill individuals suffering from gender dysphoria are unable to obtain firearms while they are unstable and unwell.” That rationale would represent an unprecedented linkage of firearm eligibility to gender identity or related diagnoses. It also would escalate a debate that has sharpened since earlier incidents, including the 2023 Covenant School shooting in Nashville by a female shooter who identified as male.

The floated ban is already drawing fire from multiple directions. Civil-liberties advocates and gun-rights supporters argue that any categorical prohibition based on identity, diagnosis, or membership in a protected class would run headlong into both the Second and Fourteenth Amendments. Under the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, modern gun restrictions must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Historically, firearm bans have applied to clearly defined categories—felons, the adjudicated mentally incompetent, or those subject to specific court orders—not to broad identity groups or people with non-adjudicated medical conditions. That makes a blanket “transgender status” restriction especially vulnerable in court.

Equal-protection concerns are just as stark. A rule that singles out people who identify as transgender—without individualized findings of dangerousness—would almost certainly face constitutional challenge for discriminatory treatment. Due-process issues also loom large: federal law (18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4)) traditionally requires formal adjudication (e.g., involuntary commitment) before someone can lose gun rights on mental-health grounds. Substituting a diagnosis code or self-identification for a judge’s finding could be seen as short-circuiting those safeguards.

Democratic leaders in Minneapolis warned against stigmatizing the broader trans community in the wake of the attack. Mayor Jacob Frey condemned what he called a surge of “hate” directed at transgender residents and insisted policymakers avoid scapegoating. The DOJ’s carefully hedged language—emphasizing “specific mental health challenges” and “no specific proposals advanced at this time”—signals awareness of how explosive the politics are, and how intricate the legal standards will be.

The White House has moved in parallel on a different front, revoking Biden-era policies that had embedded gender ideology across federal agencies. The Pentagon has re-listed gender dysphoria among medical disqualifiers for military service, and HHS under Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has scrapped advisory panels and pledged “gold-standard” evidence reviews for vaccine and public-health guidance after months of internal turmoil. Supporters say the broader repositioning is about restoring public trust and common-sense baselines; critics call it ideologically driven.

Back in Minnesota, grim details from court filings and reporting have intensified scrutiny. Records indicate Westman’s name change was initiated as a minor; writings reported by the New York Post blamed “gender and weed” for deteriorating mental health. Those revelations have spurred calls on the left for new gun restrictions targeting “assault weapons” and magazine capacity, and on the right for hardening schools and expanding trained, armed defense. The DOJ’s exploratory move hints at a third, far more novel track—one that attempts to fuse mental-health screening with identity-based eligibility.

Whether that survives even a first pass in federal court is another matter. Any final rule would need to clear Bruen’s historical-tradition test, withstand equal-protection scrutiny, and incorporate robust due-process triggers—likely individualized adjudications rather than blanket categories—to have a fighting chance. Until then, the department’s statements suggest a posture of watching, modeling, and drafting while political and legal stakeholders stake out their positions.

For now, one fact is uncontested: the horror in Minneapolis has reopened the nation’s fiercest arguments over safety, rights, and responsibility—setting up a legal showdown if DOJ turns its trial balloon into policy.