Reporting indicates that the Trump admin is considering requiring gun applicants list their "biological sex at birth," which could put them in a bureaucratic catch-22 if it does not match their ID.
So you have to prove your sex in order to be entitled to your second amendment right now? Let's put aside trans people for a second, how is that not just discrimination by sex? So intersex people don't have second amendment rights?
So there's no federal licence requirement, or safety requirement, no requirement to know how to actually operate a gun at all, but "sex" at birth will be required?
Oooookay. Love to see how they try to spin this as somehow not being simple bigotry.
There is no federal requirement to be particularly skilled at deciding who to vote for, is there, to exercise that right? Why should there be for this right?
Because voting is materially different from owning and using a gun, in ways that are so obvious I do not believe I need to explain them to you.
And look, I'm pretty pro-second amendment. I think people should be entitled to own some hella dangerous firearms - but we must pair that with a culture of responsibility and safety. And the only way to effectively enforce such a culture is with legal regulations.
In the year of our lord 2026, there are some undeniable rules that anyone using a firearm should know in order to bear arms responsibly, including but not limited to always behaving as if the gun might be loaded, always aiming downrange and never at another person except in extreme circumstance, keeping the safety on, trigger discipline, etc. These are objective in a way that voting preferences are not, and I think it's intellectually dishonest to pretend otherwise.
I'm well aware of what the constitution says, and despite the opinion of the Roberts court, I don't buy that the second amendment is quite as absolute as you're characterizing it to be.
However, I also think you're being intentionally reductive to the point of obtuseness. The original constitution does not speak very much on the right of individual citizens to vote at all, yet we acknowledge today that the right is nearly-absolute (or ought to be) because of centuries of case law and federal statutes - and, most importantly, the Fifteenth Amendment. Behold, the document can (and perhaps should) be changed! There is no need to act like the constitution is a holy text beyond the reach of mortals to alter.
And regardless of your opinion of what the constitution says, that does not alter my point that owning a gun is materially different from voting, in ways that are so obvious that I don't think you need them explained to you - however, I would be happy to supply a quick summation if you are so in need.
Your hi-falutin reverence for a document crafted by very imperfect men is sorely misplaced here.
"I don't buy that the second amendment is quite as absolute as you're characterizing it to be."
Until and unless your views actually become a threat to me, why should I care how much or how you are a blithering idiot? It is as absolute as any, which means until it is misused to create an actual tort, it may not be interfered with.
" The original constitution does not speak very much on the right of individual citizens to vote"
Oh I know that. The right to be armed accruing to all members in good standing of the body politic was first in precedence. We improve this only by enlarging the body politic to be all adults not by due process adjudicated to be violently criminal or insane.
And no, the right to bear arms is not materially different in the only way which is material, which is it's legal recognition.
"And regardless of ... sorely misplaced here."
Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah.
Your logical fallacy of special pleading is only that.
It’ll get shot down. It violates the full faith and credit clause. Federal government cannot force you to write something down that’s not on your ID card. Nor can it declare your state issued documents as invalid. I don’t make the rules. But neither do they! 💋
Do we know if there's a possibility this could potentially be used retroactively to identify and/or take firearms away from transgender individuals who already own them?
there are so many real problems in the world why does this administration work so hard on ferreting out ways to make trans life more difficult... whoever is behind this is a warped individual...
What about those of us that already own firearms? My documents are changed. The only concern that I have is that they may use AI to conduct an extensive search for transgender women. I don’t know what they would do with that info.
A Transwoman could still buy a firearm from a private individual if they wanted to. No form 4473 required.
Once again trump the asshole is doing something to hurt the transgender community - this change is nothing more than another attempt to create damage and pain for the transgender community. What they expect to accomplish with this change is nothing mote than continued harassment of a community that just wants to love their lives as anyone else would.
One more reason to make it absolutely clear that gender identity is biological (even though it's observable only in psychology), and eliminate from public and legal usage the phrases "biological men resp. women." I know there are potential risks, but the likelihood of a transmisic government accepting, but also demanding, some physical diagnostic is extremely low. Acknowledging the *very* powerful evidence of biological basis doesn't detract from any trans person's self-identification.
"Biological sex" does not have an unambiguous meaning and could not withstand real legal scrutiny (the UK high court didn't engage in that). And if they said "AMAB" or "AFAB", then the illegal sex discrimination is overpowering. (Almost in passing: by saying "biological sex at birth" apparently they now believe sex can be changed, after screaming the opposite for so long? Wow.)
For years, the CDC did the same thing: If you wanted an appointment for a COVID shot, you had to give your "sex assigned at birth" (mandatory question with only two choices - male or female). This was the policy during the Biden Administration. The policy under the dump administration seems to be to sabotage the CDC website so that you can't even use it to get a vaccination appointment, no matter who you are.
I was shocked to hear (perhaps 2 or 3 years ago) from a cisgender friend in Ohio that the motor vehicles department demands to know your "sex assigned at birth" when you have your driver's license renewed.
But yeah, this gun thing is much more disturbing. I think even if everything goes through when an honest answer is given, owning a gun could be a factor that gets a trans person labeled as a danger to society and a national security threat - a so-called "domestic terrorist," if you will.
I totally get how some trans people with few good options feel the need to arm themselves. I would urge them to bypass this entire process. There are ways around background checks, and we should use them.
So you have to prove your sex in order to be entitled to your second amendment right now? Let's put aside trans people for a second, how is that not just discrimination by sex? So intersex people don't have second amendment rights?
Well, according to them, we don’t exist. So I suppose androgynous born don’t have any constitutionally protected rights… according to the GOP anyway.
For a cis person making a mistake on the form would be a slap on the wrist. For us they’ll throw the book at us.
After they get done re-institutionalizing sexism, re-institutionalizing racism will be next.
White guys do the vast majority of the shootings but we get the blame. Got it, we are expendable.
if we had the power they seem to think we do what a wonderful world it would be!
So there's no federal licence requirement, or safety requirement, no requirement to know how to actually operate a gun at all, but "sex" at birth will be required?
Oooookay. Love to see how they try to spin this as somehow not being simple bigotry.
There is no federal requirement to be particularly skilled at deciding who to vote for, is there, to exercise that right? Why should there be for this right?
Because voting is materially different from owning and using a gun, in ways that are so obvious I do not believe I need to explain them to you.
And look, I'm pretty pro-second amendment. I think people should be entitled to own some hella dangerous firearms - but we must pair that with a culture of responsibility and safety. And the only way to effectively enforce such a culture is with legal regulations.
In the year of our lord 2026, there are some undeniable rules that anyone using a firearm should know in order to bear arms responsibly, including but not limited to always behaving as if the gun might be loaded, always aiming downrange and never at another person except in extreme circumstance, keeping the safety on, trigger discipline, etc. These are objective in a way that voting preferences are not, and I think it's intellectually dishonest to pretend otherwise.
"Because voting is materially different from owning and using a gun"
That is your duplicitously to the point of being silly pretension. They are not constitutionally different.
"And the only way to effectively enforce such a culture is with legal regulations."
No, only with laws dealing with tortuous, consequential, misuse -- and no a priori restrictions are to be tolerated.
"These are objective in a way that voting preferences are not, and I think it's intellectually dishonest to pretend otherwise."
What is intellectually dishonest is to pretend what you are obsessed with justifying, itself changes the constitution.
We'll need to agree to disagree.
I'm well aware of what the constitution says, and despite the opinion of the Roberts court, I don't buy that the second amendment is quite as absolute as you're characterizing it to be.
However, I also think you're being intentionally reductive to the point of obtuseness. The original constitution does not speak very much on the right of individual citizens to vote at all, yet we acknowledge today that the right is nearly-absolute (or ought to be) because of centuries of case law and federal statutes - and, most importantly, the Fifteenth Amendment. Behold, the document can (and perhaps should) be changed! There is no need to act like the constitution is a holy text beyond the reach of mortals to alter.
And regardless of your opinion of what the constitution says, that does not alter my point that owning a gun is materially different from voting, in ways that are so obvious that I don't think you need them explained to you - however, I would be happy to supply a quick summation if you are so in need.
Your hi-falutin reverence for a document crafted by very imperfect men is sorely misplaced here.
"I don't buy that the second amendment is quite as absolute as you're characterizing it to be."
Until and unless your views actually become a threat to me, why should I care how much or how you are a blithering idiot? It is as absolute as any, which means until it is misused to create an actual tort, it may not be interfered with.
" The original constitution does not speak very much on the right of individual citizens to vote"
Oh I know that. The right to be armed accruing to all members in good standing of the body politic was first in precedence. We improve this only by enlarging the body politic to be all adults not by due process adjudicated to be violently criminal or insane.
And no, the right to bear arms is not materially different in the only way which is material, which is it's legal recognition.
"And regardless of ... sorely misplaced here."
Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah. Blah.
Your logical fallacy of special pleading is only that.
... and with that, I think you've managed to reveal more about your own character and intelligence than you've said about mine.
It’ll get shot down. It violates the full faith and credit clause. Federal government cannot force you to write something down that’s not on your ID card. Nor can it declare your state issued documents as invalid. I don’t make the rules. But neither do they! 💋
Do we know if there's a possibility this could potentially be used retroactively to identify and/or take firearms away from transgender individuals who already own them?
sure, why not... this administration doesn't need any excuse to tromp over us...
there are so many real problems in the world why does this administration work so hard on ferreting out ways to make trans life more difficult... whoever is behind this is a warped individual...
What about those of us that already own firearms? My documents are changed. The only concern that I have is that they may use AI to conduct an extensive search for transgender women. I don’t know what they would do with that info.
A Transwoman could still buy a firearm from a private individual if they wanted to. No form 4473 required.
Under no pretext.
Once again trump the asshole is doing something to hurt the transgender community - this change is nothing more than another attempt to create damage and pain for the transgender community. What they expect to accomplish with this change is nothing mote than continued harassment of a community that just wants to love their lives as anyone else would.
One more reason to make it absolutely clear that gender identity is biological (even though it's observable only in psychology), and eliminate from public and legal usage the phrases "biological men resp. women." I know there are potential risks, but the likelihood of a transmisic government accepting, but also demanding, some physical diagnostic is extremely low. Acknowledging the *very* powerful evidence of biological basis doesn't detract from any trans person's self-identification.
"Biological sex" does not have an unambiguous meaning and could not withstand real legal scrutiny (the UK high court didn't engage in that). And if they said "AMAB" or "AFAB", then the illegal sex discrimination is overpowering. (Almost in passing: by saying "biological sex at birth" apparently they now believe sex can be changed, after screaming the opposite for so long? Wow.)
https://jaynasheats.substack.com/p/language-is-important-even-in-the
You know, I lost all of my guns last week in a tragic canoeing accident down on the Pecos River. Yes, officer, they are all lost.
Yeah . . . the old bit about how if it's time to bury them it's also time to dig them up.
Right!
For years, the CDC did the same thing: If you wanted an appointment for a COVID shot, you had to give your "sex assigned at birth" (mandatory question with only two choices - male or female). This was the policy during the Biden Administration. The policy under the dump administration seems to be to sabotage the CDC website so that you can't even use it to get a vaccination appointment, no matter who you are.
I was shocked to hear (perhaps 2 or 3 years ago) from a cisgender friend in Ohio that the motor vehicles department demands to know your "sex assigned at birth" when you have your driver's license renewed.
But yeah, this gun thing is much more disturbing. I think even if everything goes through when an honest answer is given, owning a gun could be a factor that gets a trans person labeled as a danger to society and a national security threat - a so-called "domestic terrorist," if you will.
I totally get how some trans people with few good options feel the need to arm themselves. I would urge them to bypass this entire process. There are ways around background checks, and we should use them.
It's the time to see if that earlier support offered by organizations like the NRA and other right wing gun groups with continue to this fight.
I have little faith establishment Democrats will fight for the gun rights of trans people.
Well this is a page right out of the Nazi playbook.