The deadly mass shooting that erupted in Austin’s Sixth Street entertainment district has once again exposed a dangerous reality gun rights advocates have warned about for years: gun-free zones don’t stop killers — they stop victims from fighting back.
In the early morning hours of March 1, a gunman opened fire outside Buford’s Backyard Beer Garden on West Sixth Street, killing three people and injuring more than a dozen others before police ultimately shot and killed him. Authorities identified the suspect as 53-year-old Ndiaga Diagne, who witnesses say began firing from his vehicle before continuing the attack on foot with a rifle as crowds fled in panic.
Photos circulating after the attack appeared to show the gunman wearing a gray hoodie reading “Property of Allah” along with a shirt bearing an Iranian flag design. But for gun rights advocates, the most important fact about the tragedy is this: The attack happened in an area where Texas law effectively disarms law-abiding citizens.
Under Texas’ controversial “51% rule,” establishments that derive 51% or more of their revenue from alcohol sales must post a sign prohibiting licensed gun owners from carrying firearms inside.
Critics say that policy turns bars, clubs, and entertainment districts into “sitting duck slaughter zones.” Because while criminals ignore the sign, law-abiding Texans are forced to obey it.
“Every time the government declares a gun-free zone, they’re really just declaring a victim zone,” said Texas Gun Rights President Chris McNutt. “Criminals don’t care about a red sign on a wall. But that sign ensures every law-abiding Texan inside that building is disarmed and defenseless.”
Texas Gun Rights Already Working on Repeal
Even before the Austin attack, Texas Gun Rights had begun working with lawmakers to eliminate these zones. In 2025, it worked with Rep. Nate Schatzline to start attacking these dangerous laws with HB 1908. And the organization confirmed it is already collaborating with State Rep. Wes Virdell and State Rep. Mitch Little to prepare legislation that would repeal the 51% prohibition during the 90th Texas Legislative Session in 2027.
Supporters of the effort say responsible Texans should never lose their ability to defend themselves simply because they enter a business that serves alcohol, particularly if they themselves aren’t drinking.
“No Texan should have to choose between enjoying a night out and being able to defend their life,” McNutt said. “The 51% law creates sitting duck slaughter zones, and tragedies like what happened in Austin prove exactly why it needs to be repealed.”
A Fight Ahead in Austin
Efforts to repeal Texas’ gun-free zones will almost certainly face opposition from the gun confiscation lobby and their allies in the Legislature. But Texas Gun Rights says the principle is simple: When seconds count, Texans should not be forced by state law to remain defenseless.
“Gun-free zones are the preferred hunting grounds of mass killers,” McNutt said. “And until Texas removes these zones, innocent people will continue paying the price.”
With the 2027 legislative session already on the horizon, the battle over the 51% rule is shaping up to be one of the most significant Second Amendment fights in Austin. And Texas Gun Rights says it intends to lead that fight.
“killing three people and injuring more than a dozen others …”
He selected this area for his terrorist mass-shooting because of its abundance of ‘gun free zone’. He knew he would have enough time to cause death and injury, time basically in effect guaranteed by law to every mass-shooter (which includes school-shooters) to cause the maximum amount of death and injury in ‘gun free zones’. They pick these areas because they know its unlikely there will be anyone with firearms to stop them.
They can have up to around three minutes of such guaranteed time before police start arriving, but at a minimum they have at least the first 30 seconds after the become active to inflict the maximum amount of causalities and this incident demonstrates that very well. The police say they were on scene in 57 seconds, but it did not do any good for those casualty victims the killer claimed in the 30 seconds after he became active.
But, had there been firearm carrying ordinary law abiding armed citizens there would it have made a difference? Yes, it would have if they had engaged the shooter – at a minimum they could have caused the shooter to slow down in his rampage and suppress his activity thus allowing more time for people to escape and for police to arrive – at a maximum they would have taken the killer down and stopped him cold – and this could have happened in that 30 second window that is all critical to the mass shooter where the killer establishes dominance over the target zone and starts racking up casualties – imminent threat needs imminent response to stop it, not response 57 seconds later. Now granted, no one can predict what would have happened had people not been disarmed by law. But one of the most insidious things about gun-free-zones is they remove the possibility of a chance to stop an imminent killer by dissuading people who normally carry from not carrying in the gun free zone.
There was recently another article here at SNW about the time these killers have > https://www.shootingnewsweekly.com/gun-nation/what-number-of-mass-shooting-victims-is-acceptable-to-you/
I have said for many years, and even posted it, that if a shooter is not stopped within the first 30 seconds the number of victims grows, and that the majority of victims happen in the first 3 minutes (minimum) after the shooter becomes active. The math has been obvious for years.
This is basically why, for example, mass-shooters overwhelmingly pick gun-free zones (i.e. public places and schools) – they are basically ‘guaranteed by law’ to have that 30 seconds to get moving and that 3 minutes minimum to inflict their mental illness killing on victims. And these mentally ill killers know it too.
gun free zones, defined:
“gun (gŭn) free (frē) zone (zōn)
* Trap in which people congregate and are falsely promised safety by a make believe force field of a ‘No Guns” prohibition.
* A place where people are disarmed and not permitted self-defense with firearms thus forced by law to be defenseless prey for mentally ill killers with zero chance when confronted by a mentally ill killer.
* Hunting grounds for predator criminals and mentally ill mass-killers where defenseless prey is guaranteed by law.
* Place where existing laws against violent crimes do not work to prevent violent crimes the laws are touted to be able to prevent.
* Places designed to attract violently mentally ill predators and killers.
* Places where police forces cease to operate to protect before the fact of a violent crime as they are touted to be able to do by politicians implying.
There really needs to be an honest conversation about carrying a gun, in public and what your activities are for the day.
Are you going to an amusement park? Where you will be turned upside down. On the various park rides???
Or dancing the night away at your favorite club. Or working, swinging hammers and saws at some construction site. Or a life guard at the beach?
And its over 100°F.
The problem with the “gun community” is that they don’t really consider carrying a gun, in all different aspects of life, various jobs.
People seem to act as if the only people who carry a gun, are those that work indoors and sitting down. A 35 or 40 ounce gun is completely impractical, for most people with the jobs that they do.
If the property owner doesn’t want guns then don’t give them your money. Or you can carry a small gun. That is easy to conceal.
Not your glock 19 or that all steel 1911 that you have.
An FBI agent had his gun fall out and discharge. While he was dancing. I think two years ago. And the previous Texas governor carried a Ruger pocket 380. And shot a coyote while he was jogging in the woods.
No one is going running while they have a 40 ounce gun somewhere on their body.
You can refuse to comply. And do so in a polite way. By shutting up. Say nothing. Conduct your business and leave.