Listed To This Article: Play in new window | Download | Embed

You can also subscribe via Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | Android | | More

FORT WORTH, TX — A group of Texas gun owners backed by the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) is asking a federal court to strike down parts of the Texas Penal Code that prohibit the carrying of firearms in specific public venues. The lawsuit, Ziegenfuss v. Martin, currently before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, challenges three separate carry bans covering establishments that derive 51% or more of their revenue from alcohol sales, racetracks, and sporting events.

At the heart of the case is the claim that Texas Penal Code § 46.03 unlawfully infringes upon the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens by banning licensed carry in common public areas that are neither secured by law enforcement nor historically considered “sensitive places.” Plaintiffs Charles Ziegenfuss, David Montgomery, Brian Robinson, and FPC argue that these restrictions go beyond what the Constitution allows in light of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen.

Current Status

As of April 29, 2025, both sides have filed motions for summary judgment, and the court has taken additional steps to ensure a thorough constitutional review. On April 22, Judge Mark Pittman ordered the appointment of an amicus curiae—a neutral third party—to defend the challenged Texas carry restrictions, suggesting that the court sees significant constitutional questions in play. The plaintiffs, while not objecting to the appointment, have requested the opportunity to respond to the arguments raised by the amicus and to object to any specific appointee. The defendant in the case has also been updated to Freeman Martin, replacing Steven McCraw in his official capacity as Director of the Texas Department of Public Safety.

What’s Next

The court has set a May 14, 2025, deadline for opposition briefs from both sides, followed by reply briefs due by May 28. These filings will complete the summary judgment phase, after which the judge could issue a ruling without a trial. Depending on the court’s findings, Texas could be enjoined from enforcing the carry bans at bars (51% alcohol establishments), racetracks, and sporting events, or the bans could be upheld as consistent with historical firearm regulation.

Regardless of the outcome at the district court level, the case is positioned for further appellate review. Either party could appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the constitutional issues at stake—particularly regarding what qualifies as a “sensitive place” under Bruen—could make the case a strong candidate for eventual review by the U.S. Supreme Court.

National Ramifications

This case is one of several post-Bruen lawsuits challenging state and local laws that restrict firearm carry in public spaces. At issue is the interpretation of what qualifies as a “sensitive place,” a category the Bruen Court described narrowly to include areas like courthouses, polling places, and legislative buildings. Texas’ inclusion of places such as bars and sports venues in that category is now under judicial scrutiny.

A ruling in favor of the plaintiffs could set a major precedent within the Fifth Circuit and beyond, weakening state authority to broadly ban carry in crowded or commercial areas. It would also bolster ongoing efforts to roll back similar restrictions in other states, including New York, New Jersey, and California, where expanded sensitive-place laws have already triggered lawsuits.

Why It Matters for Gun Owners

For lawful Texas gun owners, the case represents a direct challenge to the scope of the state’s carry restrictions. Plaintiffs argue that they have been forced to disarm when visiting otherwise lawful public venues, even when they are not consuming alcohol or engaging in any unlawful conduct. These bans, they contend, impose undue burdens on their right to self-defense in everyday environments.

The Firearms Policy Coalition emphasized that public carry should not be criminalized based on arbitrary classifications. “The government cannot designate common public places off-limits to peaceable, armed citizens just because it disapproves of where people gather,” FPC wrote in a statement. If successful, the suit could affirm that the right to bear arms truly extends to “all places where people may lawfully be,” not just those the government deems acceptable.