The February 16, 2026 shooting at the Dennis M. Lynch Arena in Pawtucket, Rhode Island — carried out by Robert Dorgan, a man who also went by the name Roberta Dorgano — has detonated a familiar argument on social media and in political circles: should transgender individuals be allowed to possess firearms? More pointedly, could President Trump or the executive branch simply ban them from doing so? My answer is no — and the legal architecture that produces that answer is actually good news for Second Amendment advocates everywhere.
Every American Is “the People” — Including Transgender Americans
Start with the text. The Second Amendment protects the right of “the people” to keep and bear arms. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), Justice Scalia’s majority opinion made clear that “the people” means all members of the national community — every U.S. citizen. A transgender individual who is an American citizen is, at minimum, one of “the people” as a matter of constitutional text. That right includes possessing firearms at home and carrying them for self-defense.
Under the Bruen methodology — New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022) — any government restriction on that right shifts the burden to the government to justify that restriction by showing it is consistent with the historical tradition of firearms regulation at the founding. A blanket categorical ban on an entire demographic group, untethered from any individual adjudication, has no founding-era analogue and would fail that test.
What the Law Actually Requires: Individualized Adjudication
The founding era did have mechanisms for disarming dangerous individuals. Affray laws — rooted in the Statute of Northampton (1328) — were criminal prohibitions on going armed in ways that terrified the public. Surety laws were civil; a court could require a person found to pose a credible threat of violence to post a bond if they wished to remain armed. Both involved a hearing, a finding, and individualized process.
That history is exactly what the Supreme Court drew on in United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024), decided June 21, 2024. Chief Justice Roberts wrote for an 8–1 majority (Justice Thomas was the sole dissenter) that an individual found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment. The operative word is found — meaning after some adjudication, some due process, some individualized determination.
That principle protects all of us. The requirement of an individualized adjudication is a feature, not a bug. The government cannot pass a law saying “if you supported Donald Trump, you lose your guns.” It has to prove dangerousness to a neutral tribunal, case by case.
The Federal Statutory Layer: 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4)
Federal law reinforces this framework. Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4) — part of the Gun Control Act of 1968 — two categories of people lose their firearm rights for life: those adjudicated as a “mental defective” and those who have been involuntarily committed to a mental institution. Either path requires a court or administrative adjudication after some form of due process. The federal statute does not authorize the executive branch to designate new prohibited categories by fiat. The president cannot simply declare that transgender Americans are a prohibited class under § 922(g).
The trigger for the federal disability is a state civil commitment proceeding — a trial-like hearing at the clear-and-convincing-evidence standard, with appointed counsel, witnesses, mental health records, and cross-examination. If a court finds that a person is mentally ill and a danger to themselves or others, they can be civilly committed, which then triggers the federal lifetime disarmament under § 922(g)(4). The burden falls on the government, and that process is deliberately demanding.
Gender Dysphoria, the DSM, and the Practical Limits
Here is where it gets practically complicated. Gender dysphoria is a recognized diagnostic category in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5-TR). But the diagnosis by itself says nothing about dangerousness. A civil commitment requires two findings: mental illness and danger to self or others. Being transgender or carrying a gender dysphoria diagnosis does not establish the second prong.
The mental health professionals who would have to testify broadly do not view gender dysphoria as indicative of violent dangerousness. Getting a clinician to opine that a specific individual is both suffering from gender dysphoria and a credible threat of harm would be an uphill evidentiary battle in most jurisdictions. Most mental health professionals also carry a duty to report — if a patient expresses specific intent to harm others, they must notify law enforcement. That duty matters. But it operates prospectively and individually, not as a basis for category-wide preemptive disarmament.
Red Flag Laws and the Due Process Deficit
The anti-gun lobby hates civil commitment precisely because it is hard to win. That is why they invented red flag laws — Extreme Risk Protection Orders — engineered shortcuts around the full civil commitment process. The only remedy in a red flag proceeding is gun confiscation. A person found dangerous but without firearms gets nothing; someone dangerous and unmedicated stays on the street, disarmed but otherwise free.
My position has always been straightforward: if you’re too dangerous to possess a firearm, you’re too dangerous to be walking around unsupervised. The civil commitment process reflects that logic. Red flag laws abandon it in favor of targeting gun owners alone.
The Bottom Line
President Trump cannot issue an executive order banning transgender Americans from possessing firearms, and the Rahimi framework — correctly understood — actually protects the individualized-adjudication principle that benefits all gun owners. The path to lawful disarmament runs through individual civil commitment proceedings under state law, each with its own due process protections, feeding into the federal prohibition under § 922(g)(4). That is a deliberately high bar. It should be.
This article is based on analysis by Professor Mark W. Smith, constitutional attorney and Host of the Four Boxes Diner 2nd Amendment channel. Watch the original video here. This does not constitute legal advice.