Fox Host Sparks Trans Gun Ban Firestorm

A new push to restrict gun ownership based on gender dysphoria is colliding head-on with the Constitution—and even long-time gun-rights allies are warning it could open the door to broader government overreach.

Story Snapshot

Fox News host Lawrence Jones drew backlash after saying people diagnosed with gender dysphoria should not be allowed to own firearms.
The comments followed a deadly February 16, 2026 shooting at a youth hockey game in Pawtucket, Rhode Island, involving 56-year-old Robert Dorgan.
The Justice Department is reportedly holding early-stage discussions about a legal framework to limit gun purchases by transgender people, but no policy has been announced.
Legal analysis cited in the research indicates identity-based firearm bans would likely face serious Second Amendment and equal-protection challenges.

What Lawrence Jones Said—and Why It Blew Up

Fox News contributor and host Lawrence Jones sparked a national dispute after remarks made on the February 17, 2026 episode of The Five. Jones argued that transgender people diagnosed with gender dysphoria should be barred from owning guns, while drawing a distinction between someone who “wants to wear a dress” and someone who “from a psychological standpoint” believes they are another sex. The distinction did not stop criticism that the comments blurred medical terms into a political litmus test.

Jones’ comments landed in the middle of two already-explosive national debates: gun control versus Second Amendment protections, and the ongoing fight over transgender policy in schools, sports, and public life. Critics framed his remarks as stigmatizing transgender Americans, while supporters viewed them as an argument for more mental-health screening around gun access. The research does not show Jones proposed specific legislation; the controversy centers on the principle of restricting rights based on diagnosis or identity.

The Pawtucket Shooting That Triggered the Segment

The panel discussion was prompted by a deadly incident on February 16, 2026 at the Dennis M. Lynch Arena in Pawtucket, Rhode Island, during a youth hockey game described as a “senior night” for the victim’s son. Robert Dorgan, 56, fatally shot their son and ex-wife and then took their own life. Reporting in the research says Dorgan had undergone gender-affirming surgery in 2020 and later faced family turmoil, including divorce proceedings.

Police statements referenced in the research indicated there were no prior warnings of violence at the game, highlighting a problem familiar to every community dealing with sudden attacks: warning signs are often unclear or missed until it is too late. That reality is why many conservatives resist broad, identity-based bans and instead emphasize behavior-based disqualifiers that respect due process. The Pawtucket case is a tragedy, but the available reporting does not establish that transgender status alone predicts violence.

DOJ Talks Signal a High-Stakes Legal Experiment

Separate from Jones’ on-air remarks, the research reports the Justice Department is in early-stage internal discussions about limiting gun purchases by transgender people, involving offices such as the Office of Legal Counsel and potentially the ATF. Officials have been described as thinking through whether a “feasible legal framework” exists, but no concrete action has been announced. For a country already wary of politicized agencies, even preliminary talks raise alarms about how rights could be redefined administratively.

The research also notes a prior flashpoint: in 2025, after a Minneapolis Catholic church shooting involving a transgender woman identified as Robin Westman, the Trump Justice Department attempted to ban transgender people from owning guns. That effort reportedly faced pushback, including from the NRA, which argued the Second Amendment “isn’t up for debate.” For conservative voters, that tension matters: once government starts sorting rights by group identity, the target can change with the next election cycle.

Constitutional and Medical Limits: Identity vs. Adjudication

Legal analysis cited in the research warns that any blanket restriction singling out a group based on identity would likely face heightened scrutiny and serious challenges under both the Second Amendment and equal-protection principles. Existing firearm prohibitions typically flow from demonstrated conduct, criminal conviction, or legal adjudication—not a label or category. That distinction is central to constitutional conservatives: rights are individual, and restrictions are supposed to be narrow, specific, and tied to due process rather than cultural politics.

The research also stresses an important medical distinction often lost in cable-news shouting matches. Medical and psychiatric bodies do not classify “being transgender” as a mental disorder, though people pursuing treatment may receive a diagnosis of gender dysphoria, defined as distress related to incongruence between gender identity and sex assigned at birth. Using that diagnosis as a proxy for dangerousness could pressure clinicians and patients in ways that have nothing to do with criminal behavior.

What the Data Cited Actually Shows—and Doesn’t

Data referenced from the Violence Prevention Project indicates up to 98 percent of mass shooting perpetrators are cisgender men, a statistic critics used to argue that targeting transgender people would be statistically ineffective as a public-safety measure. That figure does not erase the reality that individual transgender perpetrators exist, including in the cases discussed in the research, but it does complicate claims that transgender status itself is a meaningful predictor of mass violence.

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

For conservatives who care about both public safety and constitutional guardrails, the bottom line is that policy built on identity categories is easier to politicize and harder to defend in court than policy tied to adjudicated danger, criminal history, or clear due-process findings. The DOJ’s reported discussions will likely draw intense scrutiny from gun-rights advocates, civil-liberties attorneys, and voters who watched years of federal mission creep under the prior administration.