The new transgender gun grab?
And what if? Not really.
Lawyers talk about stuff, examine weaknesses in potential arguments, and don't always reveal which side they are on outside of court.
Katelyn Caralle
... Pam Bondi is considering banning transgender people from purchasing firearms, according to conservative outlet the Daily Wire. //'Individuals within the DOJ are reviewing ways to ensure that mentally ill individuals suffering from gender dysphoria are unable to obtain firearms while they are unstable and unwell,' a DOJ source claimed. //...Asked about the differentiation between identifying someone with 'gender dysphoria' and someone who is 'trans-identifying,' a DOJ source told the Daily Wire they're 'not playing semantics with words like dysphoria.'
There are always johns, pimps and madams hanging around courthouses, and they play plenty of semantic word games and mental health pick-up pranks.
'We're talking about trannies, and we don't think they should have guns,' they added.
And go to court with that? The journalists had perhaps better check their sources if that's really a lawyer in good standing with the bar association in federal court.
People talk like that. There are what-if arguments on all sides of all cases at courthouse cafés. This of course is the argument put forth very facetiously in some overheard or misinterpreted context or another that no self-respecting lawyer wants to be caught dead making for real in court. But someone is bound to say something like that somewhere in response to the Minnesota Catholic school shooting by a transgender individual. Someone voiced an argument that may or may not have to be responded to in court, ridiculous as it sounds.