Has Texas Fallen?

The ink is barely dry on the ballots from the November 3 midterm elections, and already we’re seeing renewed efforts to restrict Second Amendment rights.

On November 9, just six days after the election, Texas lawmakers began prefiling legislation for the state’s 2027 legislative session. According to the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, approximately 35 firearm-related bills were filed on the very first day, many of them proposing additional restrictions on gun ownership.

Among the proposals:

• SB 80: Restrictions on the acquisition and possession of certain semiautomatic firearms by adults under 21.
• HB 218: Extreme-risk protective orders that could temporarily require individuals to surrender firearms under specified circumstances.
• HB 613: Expanded background-check requirements for private firearm transfers.
• HB 659: Reporting requirements involving multiple firearm or magazine purchases.
• HB 609 and HB 658: Additional requirements or penalties related to firearm storage and access.

These are proposals, not enacted laws. Yet… They will have to work their way through the legislative process when the Texas Legislature convenes in January. The Republicans still hold the Texas Senate so their fate is not absolute.

But their introduction raises an important question: Why is restricting access to firearms so frequently presented as the solution to violence committed by individuals?

The overwhelming majority of Americans who own firearms do so for lawful purposes. They hunt, participate in shooting sports, collect firearms, or keep them for personal protection. They are not responsible for the crimes committed by others.

Yet many proposed firearm restrictions would impose new legal obligations on precisely those individuals.

Supporters of these measures argue that they could prevent violence and save lives. That objective is worthy but so so are the constitutional rights of lawful gun owners.

And this discussion is no longer confined to Texas.

Following the midterm elections, Democrats are preparing to assume control of both chambers of Congress. National gun-control organizations are already discussing opportunities to influence federal policy through congressional oversight, spending decisions, and regulatory priorities.

The federal situation is similar to Texas. In Texas the Republicans held the Senate while nationally President Trump will retain his veto authority. In both places major legislative changes would face significant obstacles. Nevertheless, the national discussion is clearly underway.

Throughout the election, Americans expressed serious concerns about affordability, energy prices, housing costs, and the financial pressures facing ordinary households.

Less than a week later, we are already seeing substantial attention directed toward new firearm restrictions.

Perhaps the most important question is one we should be asking whenever legislation affecting a constitutional right is proposed:

Does this measure address the people responsible for criminal violence, or does it primarily impose additional restrictions on people who have committed no crime?

Public safety is a legitimate responsibility of government. So is protecting the constitutional rights of the people it serves.

We don’t get to mow down the rights of law-abiding citizens simply because someone else might use a firearm to commit a crime.

Before the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, lower courts frequently relied on a form of interest balancing when evaluating Second Amendment restrictions. They weighed the government’s asserted public-safety interests against the burdens imposed on constitutional rights.

In Bruen, the Supreme Court rejected that approach, requiring firearm regulations covered by the Second Amendment’s text to be evaluated against the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.

But let’s consider the interest-balancing argument from another perspective.

Millions of Americans exercise their Second Amendment rights peacefully every day. Their interests matter, too. If we’re going to weigh competing interests, why should the rights and security of those law-abiding Americans receive less consideration simply because a comparatively small number of individuals commit crimes?

Every innocent life lost to firearm violence is a tragedy. That should never be minimized. But we also cannot ignore the people who rely on firearms to protect themselves and their families.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention currently cites estimates ranging from 500,000 to 2.5 million defensive firearm uses annually. Other studies have produced considerably lower estimates, and researchers continue to debate the methodology. What should not be lost in that debate is that firearms are also used for lawful self-defense.

And that brings us back to the fundamental question: How does imposing additional restrictions on people who have committed no crime make those individuals—or society as a whole—safer?