Gun Rights Showdown: Transgender Ban Looms?

A brutal family murder-suicide in Rhode Island has reignited a volatile question: can Washington lawfully strip gun rights based on a contested label like “gender dysphoria” without shredding constitutional protections?

Quick Take

Fox News host Lawrence Jones argued that people diagnosed with gender dysphoria should be barred from owning firearms, pointing to federal background-check paperwork on mental health disqualifiers.
The comments followed a Feb. 16, 2026, shooting at Dennis M. Lynch Arena in Pawtucket, Rhode Island, where Robert Dorgan (also known as Roberta Esposito) killed two family members and then died by suicide.
ATF Form 4473 contains mental-health-related prohibitions, but the provided reporting says gender dysphoria is not explicitly listed as a disqualifying condition.
The NRA has opposed blanket bans targeting transgender people, warning against identity-based restrictions on Second Amendment rights.
Legal analysis cited in the research suggests any identity-based prohibition would face steep constitutional hurdles and would likely need to be behavior-based to survive court scrutiny.

Rhode Island shooting drives a familiar national argument

Pawtucket, Rhode Island, became the latest flashpoint after a Feb. 16 shooting at Dennis M. Lynch Arena during a youth hockey “senior night” event. Reporting in the provided sources identifies the shooter as 56-year-old Robert Dorgan, also known as Roberta Esposito, who had undergone gender-affirming surgery years earlier. Police said Dorgan killed his son and ex-wife and then died by suicide. The incident’s domestic nature complicates attempts to turn it into a broad policy blueprint.

On Feb. 17, Fox News host Lawrence Jones discussed the shooting on The Five and argued that individuals diagnosed with gender dysphoria should not be able to own guns. In the coverage summarized in the research, Jones drew a line between gender nonconformity and a clinical diagnosis, suggesting that a diagnosis should trigger the “mental health” disqualifier concept found on federal firearm paperwork. His remarks quickly sparked online backlash and a competing wave of agreement focused on mental-health screening.

What federal gun forms do—and don’t—say about dysphoria

Federal background checks rely in part on ATF Form 4473, which asks about disqualifying conditions tied to mental health adjudications and commitments. The research materials emphasize an important limitation: the form does not explicitly list gender dysphoria as a disqualifying condition. Medical and psychiatric bodies also do not treat transgender identity itself as a mental disorder, even though gender dysphoria is a diagnosis describing distress and can appear in clinical settings that precede medical transition.

That gap matters because “mental health” in gun law is not a casual label; it is typically tied to specific legal findings, not media commentary or political definitions. The research notes critics arguing that conflating transgender status with disqualifying mental illness is inaccurate and stigmatizing. At the same time, the reporting shows why the topic keeps returning after high-profile violence: policymakers and commentators often reach for mental-health explanations after shootings, especially when broad gun-control proposals face public resistance.

The 2025 DOJ talks and the NRA’s red line

The current debate echoes 2025, when Trump’s Justice Department explored whether it could bar transgender people from buying guns by treating transgender identity as a mental illness classification, according to the provided sources. Those discussions followed another high-profile incident in Minneapolis involving a transgender woman shooter. But the research indicates no concrete federal policy resulted, in part because major stakeholders—including the NRA—opposed a blanket transgender-based prohibition and argued that the Second Amendment is not negotiable through identity tests.

For conservative voters who want both public safety and constitutional fidelity, that history is instructive. The NRA position cited in the research underscores a core issue: once the federal government starts building prohibited categories around identity rather than conduct, the list can expand and shift with the politics of the moment. That concern is not theoretical in a polarized era; it is the same mechanism progressives have tried to use against broad classes of gun owners through aggressive administrative rulemaking.

Legal constraints point toward behavior-based standards, not group bans

Legal analysis referenced in the research argues that an identity-based ban would likely fail under strict scrutiny and equal-protection principles, meaning the government would need a narrowly tailored policy grounded in demonstrable risk—not generalized assumptions. The same analysis suggests restrictions would have to be behavior-based, such as disqualifications tied to court findings, credible threats, or criminal conduct. That approach aligns more cleanly with constitutional limits while still allowing policymakers to address genuine warning signs.

Fox News host says 'transgender' people should not be able to own guns in wake of deadly shootings – LifeSite https://t.co/t5WvXM4pOd

— Anthony Scott (@Anthonys8Scott) February 21, 2026

The available reporting also highlights a practical problem: data cited in the research says the overwhelming majority of mass shooters are cisgender men, which weakens arguments that transgender status itself is a meaningful predictor of violence. The Rhode Island case was horrific, but the sources also note it was bound up with family turmoil and divorce history rather than a simple ideological explanation. With no new policy action reported as of Feb. 19, the debate remains more media-driven than legislative.