Document Type

Notes

Publication Date

5-13-2026

Keywords

Second Amendment; firearms regulation; history-and-tradition test; dangerousness; status-based prohibitions; stigmatic disarmament; military discharge; dishonorable discharge; LGBTQ+; Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

Subject Category

Constitutional Law

Abstract

For decades, the United States military discharged LGBTQ+ service members based on their sexual orientation, often assigning discharge characterizations that carry enduring legal consequences. One overlooked consequence arises under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(6), which prohibits individuals discharged "under dishonorable conditions" from possessing firearms. Although this provision has received limited judicial scrutiny, the Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen calls its constitutionality into question by requiring that modern firearm regulations be consistent with the Nation's historical tradition of regulation.

This Note argues that § 922(g)(6) is constitutionally vulnerable as applied to veterans discharged solely because of their sexuality. It introduces the concept of "stigmatic disarmament" to describe how discriminatory military policies and federal firearms law interact to exclude this group from Second Amendment protections. Under Bruen, the government's reliance on "dangerousness" as a unifying historical principle cannot justify disarming individuals whose status reflects moral condemnation rather than any demonstrated risk of violence. By identifying this gap in the historical record, this Note contends that § 922(g)(6), as applied in this context, lacks a valid constitutional foundation and invites further scrutiny of status-based firearm prohibitions.

Download

Share

COinS