I served my country in the United States Air Force, both active duty and reserves. I learned to fire weapons, but outside of uniform, I never owned one. That does not make me any less of a supporter of the Second Amendment. I have always believed the right to keep and bear arms is as fundamental as the right to free speech or the right to vote.
But in the aftermath of the tragic Minnesota shooting, I have been watching a disturbing narrative unfold: calls from Republican lawmakers, conservative commentators, and even some within our own LGBTQ+ community to restrict or remove gun rights from transgender people altogether. The implication is chilling. Because of our identity, not our actions, our constitutional rights should be diminished.
This moment is bigger than just one state, one tragedy, or one news cycle. It is about what happens when society decides that a marginalized group is too dangerous to be trusted with rights guaranteed to every other American.
The Minnesota Tragedy
Before diving into the politics, we have to acknowledge the human cost. A shooting in Minnesota left families shattered, lives lost, and a community grieving. Every shooting like this is a tragedy. Full stop.
But instead of focusing on the shooter as an individual or asking hard questions about mental health, access to guns, and systemic failures that cut across all demographics, certain voices immediately zeroed in on one fact: the shooter was transgender.
That single word, transgender, became the headline. The tragedy became not about loss of life, but about fueling another round of culture war politics. Suddenly, it was not a story about a broken system. It was a story about the so-called dangers of trans people with guns.
The Political Spin: Rights for Me, Not for Thee
Second Amendment rhetoric has long been a conservative rallying cry. The same politicians who say, “You’ll take my guns from my cold dead hands,” are suddenly singing a different tune when the person holding the gun is transgender.
We have seen bills floated at the state level suggesting restrictions on transgender gun ownership. We have heard talking heads argue that being transgender is evidence of mental instability, and therefore trans people should be denied the ability to purchase or carry firearms.
This is the same tired playbook used throughout American history:
- Women were once considered too emotional for the vote.
- Black Americans were painted as dangerous to justify voter suppression and over-policing.
- Gay men were vilified during the AIDS crisis as public health threats.
Now, it is transgender people being branded as inherently unstable, untrustworthy, and unsafe.
When rights are stripped from one group, history shows it is never long before others follow.
Even Within the Community: The “Male-Coded” Debate
What hurts most is not just the outside attacks. It is the whispers from within.
Some LGBTQ+ voices, often trans women who have never touched a firearm or allies who associate guns with patriarchal violence, have asked, “Why do so many trans women own guns? Isn’t that male-coded?”
Let’s unpack that.
First, the idea that owning a tool, any tool, is tied to gender is an old stereotype. Guns are no more male-coded than wrenches, guitars, or computers. What they are is powerful, and in a world where transgender women are targeted for violence at alarming rates, power matters.
Studies show trans women, especially trans women of color, face disproportionate risks of hate crimes. For some, a firearm is not about politics. It is about survival. Just as carrying pepper spray, taking self-defense classes, or locking your doors is not male-coded, neither is owning a gun.
Framing self-defense as a gendered trait misses the reality: safety is not masculine or feminine; it is human.
The Veteran’s Perspective: Why the Second Amendment Matters
When I raised my right hand and swore to protect this country, I did not do it selectively. I did not say, “I’ll protect the Constitution for everyone, except trans people.”
In the military, I carried weapons not because I loved them, but because they were tools of the job. I respected them. I respected the responsibility.
That experience shaped how I see the Second Amendment. It is not about glorifying violence. It is not about stockpiling arsenals. It is about the principle that power should not be monopolized by the state. Citizens have the right to safeguard themselves, their families, and yes, even their communities.
Transgender Americans are citizens. We serve in the military. We pay taxes. We raise families. Our rights are not special privileges. They are the same rights guaranteed to every other American.
To argue otherwise is to admit that “all men are created equal” has always been conditional.
A History of “Conditional Rights”
Whenever society feels threatened, the first instinct is to find a scapegoat. That scapegoat is then painted as too dangerous to deserve rights.
- After 9/11, Muslim Americans were surveilled, profiled, and treated as suspects simply for existing.
- During the Red Scare, suspected communists were blacklisted and silenced, their constitutional protections tossed aside.
- Before the Civil Rights Movement, literacy tests and poll taxes ensured Black Americans could not exercise their rights.
Now we are watching the same logic being applied to trans people and the Second Amendment: “You’re too different, too unstable, too risky. Your rights are optional.”
Rights do not work that way. They are either guaranteed equally, or they are privileges rationed out by the majority.
Safety, Stigma, and Self-Defense
Here is the hard truth: America has a gun violence problem. That is not up for debate. But solving that problem does not mean scapegoating marginalized groups.
Trans people are not the ones driving mass shootings. We are not overrepresented in crime statistics. But we are disproportionately victims of violence.
For many trans women, especially those living in rural areas where police protection is unreliable, a firearm represents a last line of defense. It is not about fantasy or aggression. It is about the very real threat of being targeted for existing.
Yet we are told that our ownership of firearms is male-coded or dangerous, while cisgender men, who commit the overwhelming majority of gun crimes, are treated as individuals, not representatives of a group.
Why should our identities mark us as unfit for rights, while others are judged solely by their actions?
Breaking Down the “Mental Health” Argument
One of the most common arguments for stripping trans people of gun rights is the “mental health” claim. Politicians and pundits insist that being transgender is itself a mental illness or that seeking gender-affirming care proves instability.
This argument is false, harmful, and outdated.
- The American Psychiatric Association and World Health Organization both affirm that being transgender is not a mental illness.
- Gender dysphoria is recognized as a condition related to distress, not identity itself, and treatment reduces that distress.
- Studies consistently show that access to gender-affirming care improves mental health outcomes, not the other way around.
If we followed the logic of “restrict gun rights for anyone with mental health conditions,” then millions of Americans with depression, anxiety, or PTSD, including veterans, would lose their Second Amendment rights.
Instead, this argument is selectively weaponized against trans people. It is not about safety. It is about stigma.
When Allies Become Gatekeepers
It is frustrating to hear supposed allies suggest that trans women with guns are “just reinforcing patriarchy.” These critiques often come from a place of academic theory, not lived experience.
Try telling a trans woman who has been followed home, harassed on the street, or attacked in a bathroom that her desire for protection is male-coded.
Safety is not theoretical. It is immediate. It is visceral. And for too many of us, it is necessary.
True allyship means respecting that our survival strategies may look different. For some, it is community networks. For others, it is safe housing. For still others, it is the choice to own a firearm. None of these invalidate our womanhood, our identities, or our values.
What This Moment Demands
The Minnesota tragedy is heartbreaking. But we must resist the reflex to let tragedy justify stripping rights from already marginalized people.
What this moment demands is clarity:
- Condemn violence, not identity. A shooter’s trans status is irrelevant. Their actions are the issue.
- Protect equal rights. The Constitution does not say “except for trans people.”
- Challenge community stigma. Questioning why trans women own guns reinforces gender stereotypes we have fought to dismantle.
- Address root causes. Gun violence in America is a systemic issue, driven by poverty, extremism, and lack of healthcare, not by transgender identity.
RELATED: Learning from History: Nonviolent Paths for Trans Rights
The Bottom Line
As an Air Force veteran, I know the weight of responsibility that comes with firearms. I also know the weight of promises, promises enshrined in our Constitution.
When politicians argue that trans people should lose their Second Amendment rights, what they are really saying is that our citizenship is conditional. That our humanity is negotiable. That our existence makes us unworthy of rights guaranteed to others.
But the truth is simple: the Second Amendment either applies to all Americans, or it applies to none.
For transgender Americans, this fight is not just about guns. It is about dignity. It is about equality. It is about ensuring that when the Constitution says “We the People,” it means us too.
