The Justice Department is reviewing whether to expand how federal firearm restrictions apply, following a mass shooting at a Minneapolis Catholic church that left two children dead and 21 others wounded. According to reports using anonymous sources from CNN and The Wall Street Journal, internal discussions have touched on whether transgender individuals could be included under laws that would bar some people with mental health conditions from owning guns.

Officials emphasized the talks are preliminary and no formal proposal has been made. Authorities said the Aug. 27 shooting at Annunciation Catholic Church was carried out by a transgender woman. Most of the victims were children attending the service.

Download the SAN app today to stay up-to-date with Unbiased. Straight Facts™.

Point phone camera here

Shooting sparks calls for stricter gun laws

A Justice Department spokesperson told The Wall Street Journal that officials are discussing ways to prevent violence by people with mental health conditions or substance use disorders, but no specific criminal justice reforms have advanced.

The shooting renewed calls from advocacy groups for stricter gun laws in general, sparking a wider conversation about how federal and state regulations should address public safety.

Moms Demand Action joined other groups in urging lawmakers and Minnesota officials to act quickly.

“Time and time again, mass shootings, carried out with weapons of war, end children’s lives, leaving families grief-stricken and communities traumatized,” the group said in a statement.

Gender dysphoria considered mental disorder

Gender dysphoria is listed as a mental disorder in the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), the guide doctors use to diagnose mental health conditions.

Some critics have pointed to gender dysphoria’s classification as a mental disorder to support limiting certain rights, including firearm ownership, even though medical experts stress that it is the distress caused by the incongruence, not the identity itself, that defines the condition. 

A person whose gender identity differs from their assigned sex at birth is not automatically considered to have a disorder. A diagnosis only applies when that difference leads to significant discomfort or challenges in daily life.

Advocacy groups pushback on mental health narrative

In response to the shooting, Operation Blazing Sword, an LGBTQ+ advocacy group, said the suspect’s gender identity is irrelevant and should not be used to generalize about the community.

The group noted the shooter’s manifesto showed signs of both homicidal and suicidal intent.

“It is criminals who commit crimes, not people of a specific race, religion, sexual orientation, gender or any other demographic subset,” the statement said. 

Operation Blazing Sword added that, despite labels such as mentally ill or deviant, thousands of LGBTQ+ gun owners follow the law and live peacefully.

Gun rights groups speak up

The reports about possible new gun restrictions is bringing firearm advocate groups to the conversation. The National Rifle Association said the Second Amendment is for “all law-abiding Americans” and isn’t up for debate.

In a post on X, the group said, “NRA does not, and will not, support any policy proposals that implement sweeping gun bans that arbitrarily strip law-abiding citizens of their Second Amendment rights without due process.” 

Newsweek reported that The Second Amendment Foundation (SAF) also denounced any plans by the Department of Justice to impose firearm restrictions.

“Gun owners are all too familiar with the tactic of punishing everyone for the evil criminal acts of an individual, and this issue is no different,” the gun rights advocacy group said. 

SAF said further removing gun rights from transgender people solely on their self-identification goes against the U.S. Constitution. 

“Beyond the bad policy and constitutional infirmities of such ‘considerations’ the Department of Justice has no authority to unilaterally identify groups of people that it would like to strip of their constitutional rights,” the statement continues. “SAF sincerely hopes that the reports of such considerations by the DOJ are inaccurate, as the policy reportedly being contemplated is worthy of the strongest possible condemnation and legal action.”

Federal law, legal challenges

Under federal law, firearm restrictions already apply to certain groups. The Gun Control Act of 1968 bars people convicted of felonies, those convicted of domestic violence misdemeanors and individuals “adjudicated as mentally defective” or committed to mental institutions from owning guns.

Courts have debated how far those rules can extend. In recent years, challenges have reached the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen struck down New York’s requirement that residents show “proper cause” to carry a handgun in public.

The Court ruled the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry firearms for self-defense and said any gun regulation must be consistent with the nation’s historical tradition. The ruling broadened Second Amendment protections and set a new standard that courts now use to evaluate gun restrictions.