News and Events => Political and Legal News => Topic started by: Jessica_Rose on January 20, 2026, 06:05:44 AM Return to Full Version
Title: DOJ may weaken gun rules to placate Second Amendment activists: report
Post by: Jessica_Rose on January 20, 2026, 06:05:44 AM
Post by: Jessica_Rose on January 20, 2026, 06:05:44 AM
DOJ may weaken gun rules to placate Second Amendment activists: report
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/doj-may-weaken-gun-rules-to-placate-second-amendment-activists-report/ar-AA1UynpW?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=7d130d3147cc460bfed2db6dc6fbd2dc&ei=105
Io Dodds (19 Jan 2026)
The Justice Department is considering weakening federal gun regulations in order to curry favor with Second Amendment activists, according to reports.
Unnamed insiders told The Washington Post that the Trump administration is mulling whether to loosen limits on private firearm sales, imports, and shipping by mail.
But in at least one way, the proposed changes would tighten the rules: requiring gun buyers to list their birth sex on the purchase paperwork, even if they have legally or medically changed it.
That would force transgender people who have changed their names to effectively out themselves as trans — or else lie on a government form.
The Trump administration has often sought to roll back gun laws, such as by suing the District of Columbia over its restrictions on semi-automatic weapons and asking the Supreme Court to review a law against people who use illegal drugs possessing firearms.
The notable exception has been trans people. Last year the DoJ reportedly considered whether it could ban trans people from gun ownership entirely, on the basis that being trans makes you mentally ill.
Gun rights groups spoke out against that idea, with the National Rifle Association saying it "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."
===================================================================================================
I placed extra emphasis on the parts mentioning trans folks. Apparently, the current administration wants to loosen many rules concerning firearms, and doesn't want the trans community to own them.
Love always -- Jessica Rose
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/other/doj-may-weaken-gun-rules-to-placate-second-amendment-activists-report/ar-AA1UynpW?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=7d130d3147cc460bfed2db6dc6fbd2dc&ei=105
Io Dodds (19 Jan 2026)
The Justice Department is considering weakening federal gun regulations in order to curry favor with Second Amendment activists, according to reports.
Unnamed insiders told The Washington Post that the Trump administration is mulling whether to loosen limits on private firearm sales, imports, and shipping by mail.
But in at least one way, the proposed changes would tighten the rules: requiring gun buyers to list their birth sex on the purchase paperwork, even if they have legally or medically changed it.
That would force transgender people who have changed their names to effectively out themselves as trans — or else lie on a government form.
The Trump administration has often sought to roll back gun laws, such as by suing the District of Columbia over its restrictions on semi-automatic weapons and asking the Supreme Court to review a law against people who use illegal drugs possessing firearms.
The notable exception has been trans people. Last year the DoJ reportedly considered whether it could ban trans people from gun ownership entirely, on the basis that being trans makes you mentally ill.
Gun rights groups spoke out against that idea, with the National Rifle Association saying it "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."
===================================================================================================
I placed extra emphasis on the parts mentioning trans folks. Apparently, the current administration wants to loosen many rules concerning firearms, and doesn't want the trans community to own them.
Love always -- Jessica Rose
Title: Re: DOJ may weaken gun rules to placate Second Amendment activists: report
Post by: Lori Dee on January 20, 2026, 10:02:48 AM
Post by: Lori Dee on January 20, 2026, 10:02:48 AM
The Second Amendment is clear and decided. "The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
It does not say anything about registration, training, mental health status, gender, permits, fees, or how many. It is not a matter of opinion and is not up for a vote.
The Georgia Supreme Court made it perfectly clear what this means:
"The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon in the smallest degree..." ~ Nunn v. State of Georgia, (1846)
In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that its protection is not limited to "only those weapons useful in warfare".
"A law repugnant to the Constitution is void. An act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution cannot become a law. The Constitution supersedes all other laws, and the individual's rights shall be liberally enforced in favor of him, the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary." ~ Marbury v. Madison, (1803)
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them". ~ Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
"An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed". ~ Norton v. Shelby County, Tennessee (1886)
"No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore."
~ Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943)
"If the state converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity."
~ Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama (1969)
Rights are like muscles. If they are not exercised regularly, you can lose them. The amendment does not require anyone to possess arms who is opposed to doing so. It merely specifies that the right to choose shall not be limited or restricted in any way. The right to self-defense is absolute. No one has the authority to restrict how you protect yourself.
The one exception is that a proper court of law may impose restrictions after due process. A convicted felon can have rights restricted as part of their sentence.
It does not say anything about registration, training, mental health status, gender, permits, fees, or how many. It is not a matter of opinion and is not up for a vote.
The Georgia Supreme Court made it perfectly clear what this means:
"The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon in the smallest degree..." ~ Nunn v. State of Georgia, (1846)
In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that its protection is not limited to "only those weapons useful in warfare".
"A law repugnant to the Constitution is void. An act of Congress repugnant to the Constitution cannot become a law. The Constitution supersedes all other laws, and the individual's rights shall be liberally enforced in favor of him, the clearly intended and expressly designated beneficiary." ~ Marbury v. Madison, (1803)
"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rulemaking or legislation which would abrogate them". ~ Miranda v. Arizona (1966)
"An unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; it affords no protection; it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation as inoperative as though it had never been passed". ~ Norton v. Shelby County, Tennessee (1886)
"No state shall convert a liberty into a license, and charge a fee therefore."
~ Murdock v. Pennsylvania (1943)
"If the state converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity."
~ Shuttlesworth v. City of Birmingham, Alabama (1969)
Rights are like muscles. If they are not exercised regularly, you can lose them. The amendment does not require anyone to possess arms who is opposed to doing so. It merely specifies that the right to choose shall not be limited or restricted in any way. The right to self-defense is absolute. No one has the authority to restrict how you protect yourself.
The one exception is that a proper court of law may impose restrictions after due process. A convicted felon can have rights restricted as part of their sentence.