FPC Sues Texas to Strike Down Ban on Handgun Carry

Constitution Glock iStock-697763612
Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) today filed a new federal Second Amendment lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas IMG iStock-697763612

U.S.A. -(AmmoLand.com)- Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) today filed a new federal Second Amendment lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas seeking to restore the right to carry arms in public for adults under 21 years of age. Defendants in the case include Steven McCraw, Director of the Texas Department of Public Safety. The lawsuit seeks a declaration finding Texas carry ban as to adults under age 21 unconstitutional, an injunction, and attorney’s fees and costs. The complaint for Andrews v. McCraw can be found at FPCLegal.org.

“Under the 18-to-20-Year-Old Carry Ban that Defendants enforce, Plaintiffs Andrews and Blakey, along with other similarly situated members of Plaintiff [FPC], are categorically prohibited from obtaining a license to carry a handgun and denied the right to carry a handgun for self-defense on their person in public, in direct violation of the Second Amendment, as incorporated against the State by the Fourteenth Amendment,” the complaint says.

In June, Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed the FPC-supported H.B. 1927 into law, enacting “constitutional carry” (i.e., permitless carry) in the Lone Star state. However, the bill did not extend the Texas statutory right to bear arms to adults under age 21. Through today’s lawsuit, FPC now seeks to ensure that all non-prohibited adults in Texas can exercise their fundamental Second Amendment right to bear arms outside the home.

“This lawsuit is part of our nationwide strategic litigation program designed to restore the Second Amendment and ensure that all non-violent individuals are able to exercise their fundamental right to keep and bear arms,” said Adam Kraut, FPC’s Senior Director of Legal Operations. “While we were glad to see Texas enact constitutional carry for adults over 21 years of age, that bill left us the important task of seeking judicial relief for adults under 21. We look forward to vindicating the rights of our members and all young adults who reside in Texas.” 

In the complaint, the plaintiffs “acknowledge that their facial challenge to Texas’s ban on public carry by 18-to-20-year-olds is foreclosed in this Court by National Rifle Association of America Rifle, Inc. v. McCraw, 719 F.3d 338 (5th Cir. 2013), but they believe that case was wrongly decided. They, therefore, institute this litigation to vindicate their Second Amendment rights and seek to have McCraw overruled by a court competent to do so. Even under McCraw, however, this Court can and should rule in favor of Plaintiffs’ as-applied claim with respect to 18-to-20-year-old women asserted by Plaintiffs Blakey and FPC on behalf of its similarly situated members.”

Thus, while the District Court could still find in favor of Plaintiffs Blakey and FPC on the as-applied claim, the case seeks to have the wrongly-decided McCraw case overruled by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Last week, the United States Supreme Court heard arguments in an FPC-supported Second Amendment challenge to New York’s “may issue” scheme. Among dozens of other Second Amendment cases, FPC has filed lawsuits challenging unconstitutional restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms in Minnesota, IllinoisCaliforniaPennsylvaniaTennessee, and Georgia.

Individuals that are interested in joining FPC in the fight against tyranny can become a member of the FPC Grassroots Army for just $25 at JoinFPC.org. For more on FPC cases and other legal action initiatives, visit FPCLegal.org and To follow these and other legal cases FPC is actively working on, visit the Legal Action section of FPC’s website or follow FPC on InstagramTwitterFacebookYouTube.

  • A challenge to California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” (Miller v. Bonta) that resulted in a post-trial judgment and permanent injunction against the challenged regulations, the first such victory in United States history
  • A challenge to Cook County’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” (Viramontes v. Cook County)
  • A challenge to Maryland’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” (Bianchi v. Frosh)
  • A challenge to California’s handgun “roster”, microstamping, and self-manufacturing ban laws (Renna v. Bonta)
  • A challenge to Massachusetts’ Approved Handgun Roster and Attorney General’s Handgun Sales Regulations (Granata v. Healey)
  • A challenge to San Diego’s ban on home-building firearms and precursor parts (Fahr v. San Diego)
  • A challenge to Delaware’s ban on home-building firearms and precursor parts, as well as 3D files (Rigby v. Carney)
  • A challenge to the federal ban on the sale of handguns and handgun ammunition to adults under 21 years of age (Reese v. ATF)
  • A challenge to New York City’s ban on electronic arms (Calce v. New York City)
  • A challenge to California’s firearm purchase rationing ban (1-in-30 day limit) (Nguyen v. Bonta)

About Firearms Policy Coalition

Firearms Policy Coalition (firearmspolicy.org) is a 501(c)4 nonprofit organization. FPC’s mission is to protect and defend constitutional rights—especially the right to keep and bear arms—advance individual liberty, and restore freedom through litigation and legal action, legislative and regulatory action, education, outreach, grassroots activism, other programs. FPC Law is the nation’s largest public interest legal team focused on the Second Amendment and adjacent fundamental rights including freedom of speech and due process, conducting litigation, research, scholarly publications, and amicus briefing, among other efforts.Firearms Policy Coalition

Subscribe
Notify of
10 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Deplorable Bill
Deplorable Bill (@deplorable-bill)
15 days ago

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”, that IS the LAW. Obviously, anyone in lock up either jail of the loony farm should not be allowed WHILE THEY ARE INCARCERATED. Once they are released back into society and the person is a non violent felon offender then yes, he should already have his rights just as any other citizen has, If they are safe enough to be let out into society by a judge or l e o, there should be no problem. We all know that is debatable. Unalienable,GOD given, constitutional rights… Read more »

Arizona
Arizona (@arizona)
15 days ago

Exactly

Roland T. Gunner
Roland T. Gunner (@freecompanier)
16 days ago
BigMikeU
BigMikeU (@michael-urban-sr)
16 days ago

I have watched as our School system brainwashed our children for almost 7yrs! The reason i was let go was because i was starting to make comments about it to the wrong people! (THOSE IN CHARGE) A retired cop that runs the night shift has a checkered past as well as sexual harassment law suites against him!! His son molested his own daughter and as he was getting out of prison for the crime, his father was trying to get him a job back at the very school he was working at when he raped his own daughter! When i… Read more »

BigMikeU
BigMikeU (@michael-urban-sr)
16 days ago

Yano i think its great that the FPC and GOA and so on are fighting for our 2A rights but in the list of states i dont see any blue states? We are starting to have a red wave in New Jersey and yet even though the 2nd most powerful DemonRat was deposed and a Republican is taking his place ,it still leaves us wondering if we will ever get our rights back? New Jersey in my opinion is the Bluest state in the Union and yet nobody is challenging the wrongful restrictions of this state? When Governor Christie was… Read more »

Roland T. Gunner
Roland T. Gunner (@freecompanier)
16 days ago
Reply to  BigMikeU

Everybody in Republican states has been hoping for an earthquake to break New Jersey off from the East Coast and let it sink into the Atlantic Ocean.

Russn8r
Russn8r (@russn8r)
15 days ago
Reply to  BigMikeU

Top priority: No hope of saving the USA without purging Vichy “Republicans” in the “R” states. Traitors, appeasers, timid baby steppers & cucks in our command post are far more destructive than the enemy outside the wire.

Why was this lawsuit necessary with “Republicans” like Abbott, Patrick & Phelan in the top leadership positions in TEXAS?

JPM
JPM (@jpm)
16 days ago

At 18 you can enlist, fight for your country and get wounded and die, but when you get home, after being trained and having practical experience with a variety of firearms, even full-auto and explosive devices, you can’t legally buy and carry a handgun to defend yourself and your loved ones? The level of absolute stupidity of the lawmakers, and within the so-called “legal system” is beyond comprehension.

Roland T. Gunner
Roland T. Gunner (@freecompanier)
16 days ago
Reply to  JPM

I dont have much issue with minor laws, like traffic laws, differing a little from state to state; but our Bill of Rights should be applied equally in all 50 states.

Russn8r
Russn8r (@russn8r)
16 days ago
Reply to  JPM

Why did FPC have to sue TEXAS?

TEXAS: like a hoe other country run by Vichy “Republicans” Abbott & Phelan.

Same reason “ConCarry” kept the deadly patchwork-quilt of “gun free” zones that facilitated the murder of 23 innocents in El Paso TEXAS with no armed civilian resistance.

Same reason TEXAS still does kiddie sex change ops.

How Phelan & Abbott Killed a Ban on Child Sex Change in TEXAS
https://texasscorecard.com/podcasts/how-burrows-phelan-abbott-killed-a-ban-on-sex-change-surgeries-in-texas-episode-140

Abbott-Phelan took $250k from sex-change mills in TEXAS, then killed kiddie sex change ban in TEXAS!
https://nationalfile.com/texas-abbott-patrick-house-speaker-received-250k-from-clinic-that-chemically-castrates-transgender-kids/

Last edited 16 days ago by Russn8r