Texas Carry Restriction Challenge Could Deal a Blow to Carry Bans Nationwide

The lawsuit Ziegenfuss v. Martin could become a landmark decision in Second Amendment jurisprudence, as Firearms Policy Coalition and several individual plaintiffs move for summary judgment in their challenge against Texas’s carry bans at bars, racetracks, and sporting events. 

If the court grants their request, the ruling would strike down longstanding restrictions on carrying firearms in these public spaces, significantly reshaping the legal landscape for gun owners in Texas and potentially across the country.

At the heart of this challenge is the question of whether the state’s bans on carrying firearms in these locations align with the historical tradition of firearm regulation as required by the Supreme Court’s 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

The plaintiffs argue that these prohibitions violate the Second Amendment, which guarantees the right to carry firearms for self-defense in public spaces. Specifically, the bans cover:

• • Businesses deriving 51% or more of revenue from alcohol sales (bars and similar venues).
  • Racetracks.
  • Sporting events (including high school, collegiate, and professional games).

What Happens If the Plaintiffs Win?

If the court grants summary judgment, it would permanently block the enforcement of these carry bans, allowing lawful gun owners—including those carrying under Texas’s permitless carry law—to legally carry firearms in these locations for the first time in decades.

For many, this would be seen as a restoration of constitutional rights, recognizing that the Second Amendment doesn’t end at the door of a racetrack or stadium.

The implications would extend beyond Texas, serving as a precedent for similar challenges across the United States.A win would signal that “sensitive place” designations, often used to justify gun bans in a variety of public settings, can’t be expanded arbitrarily.

The Historical Argument

• • Bars and alcohol-serving venues: While misuse of firearms while intoxicated was historically punished, there was no sweeping prohibition on carrying firearms in such establishments.
  • Racetracks and sporting events: These were common gathering places at the time of the Founding, yet no widespread regulations restricted firearm possession there.

The plaintiffs contend that extending the “sensitive places” doctrine to cover ordinary public spaces guts the right to carry as nearly any crowded or public venue could be reclassified.

A Broader Shift in Second Amendment Litigation

If Ziegenfuss v. Martin results in a favorable ruling for gun owners, it would represent a significant application of Bruen, reinforcing that public carry remains protected even in spaces deemed inconvenient by legislators.

It would also add momentum to the post-Bruen wave of legal challenges, where courts are increasingly asked to strike down gun control measures that lack any historical justification. Notably, Texas, often viewed as a pro-gun state, still maintains statutory restrictions that are inconsistent with constitutional carry principles.

The plaintiffs’ success here would further the restoration of gun rights in a state where lawmakers and courts have sometimes been slow to adapt to constitutional shifts.

In a time when Second Amendment rights remain under siege from all directions, Ziegenfuss v. Martin could offer gun owners a major legal win, reaffirming that the right to bear arms means bearing arms in public, even in places where bureaucrats would rather citizens be disarmed.