WASHINGTON The Department of Justice (DOJ) is facing mounting criticism after reports emerged that it is exploring whether to restrict firearm ownership for transgender Americans. The idea reportedly surfaced in the aftermath of a mass shooting at a Minneapolis Catholic church, carried out by a transgender gunman. While DOJ officials have not confirmed any draft rule, media outlets indicate that internal discussions are examining whether existing statutes and rulemaking authority could be leveraged to categorize transgender individuals as mentally unfit to own firearms. The National Rifle Association (NRA) quickly voiced opposition, making clear that it does not support sweeping identity-based prohibitions. In a statement, the NRA reiterated that the Second Amendment protects the rights of all law-abiding citizens, regardless of gender identity, and that no government policy should arbitrarily strip away rights without due process. Their message was amplified on social media with the tagline: The Second Amendment isnt up for debate. Gun Owners of America (GOA), often regarded as more uncompromising than the NRA, echoed the sentiment. The group declared in plain terms that it opposes any & all gun bans. Full stop. Their position underscores a broader alignment across major gun-rights groups: categorical restrictions on entire communities are unacceptable, especially in light of recent Supreme Court rulings that emphasize history-based constitutional tests for firearm regulation. Civil rights and LGBTQ advocates also criticized the reported DOJ considerations, arguing such measures would unfairly target an already vulnerable population. Research consistently shows that transgender people are far more likely to be victims of violent crime than perpetrators. Advocates warned that branding the entire community as unfit for firearm ownership could not only fuel stigma but also undermine personal safety for those who rely on lawful self-defense. Still, some DOJ officials have hinted at their reasoning. In background comments reported by CNN, a DOJ source suggested that restrictions could be tied to mental health concerns, specifically citing gender dysphoria during periods of instability. Critics argue that this framing conflates identity with illness and lacks the individualized due process required by federal law. Supreme Court precedentincluding 2024s United States v. Rahimimakes clear that only individuals adjudicated as dangerous through a court process may be temporarily disarmed. Broad categorical bans, legal analysts say, would likely collapse under constitutional scrutiny. Politically, the controversy has opened another fault line. Conservative commentators have amplified calls to scrutinize the fitness of transgender individuals to carry arms, citing several past shootings involving transgender or nonbinary assailants. But Republican lawmakers and many conservative activists remain wary of endorsing blanket bans, knowing such policies could backfire in the courts and fracture their coalition. Democrats, meanwhile, have largely remained focused on red-flag laws and universal background checks, rather than identity-driven restrictions.