In a pivotal legal battle with major implications for self-defense rights in Texas, the Texas Gun Rights Foundation (TGRF) has filed an Amicus Curiae brief in support of Army veteran Justin Avery Clarabut, who was convicted despite what gun rights advocates argue was a justified act of self-defense. The case, Clarabut v. State, is currently before the Ninth District Court of Appeals in Texas, with TGRF’s lead counsel, CJ Grisham, arguing that the conviction represents a miscarriage of justice and a dangerous precedent for gun owners across the state.

A Veteran’s Fight for Justice

Justin Avery Clarabut, an Army veteran and concealed handgun license holder, found himself facing criminal charges following a violent altercation with Brent Purvis. Court records reveal that Purvis exhibited aggressive behavior, including attempting to ram Clarabut’s vehicle and pursuing him through his neighborhood to his own home.

Upon reaching his residence, Clarabut, fearing for his life, retrieved his legally owned firearm and confronted Purvis. According to the defense, Purvis made a threatening motion toward the floorboard of his vehicle, leading Clarabut to believe he was reaching for a weapon. In that moment, Clarabut discharged his firearm. However, despite the clear danger he faced, a Texas jury convicted him.

Legal Framework and Precedents

Grisham and TGRF argue that Clarabut’s actions were protected under Texas’ Stand Your Ground law, which states that individuals lawfully present in a location have no duty to retreat before using deadly force if they have a reasonable belief of imminent harm. The Texas Penal Code (§9.32) explicitly permits the use of deadly force in self-defense when an individual fears for their life, even if the threat later turns out to be unreal.

TGRF’s brief references key Second Amendment Supreme Court rulings, including District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), McDonald v. City of Chicago (2010), and New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen (2022), all of which affirm the right to bear arms for self-defense. The brief also cites Brown v. United States (1921), in which Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes stated, “Detached reflection cannot be demanded in the presence of an uplifted knife.”

“This principle should extend to situations like Clarabut’s,” the brief argues. “Gun owners should not be forced to wait for an attacker to draw a weapon before defending themselves. Doing so could mean the difference between life and death.”

A Flawed Prosecution and a Chilling Precedent

TGRF takes issue with how the prosecution framed the case, particularly its closing argument that “we should not accept a world where you can shoot somebody on a maybe.” The prosecution insisted that Clarabut had to be absolutely certain that Purvis was armed before acting—an argument that TGRF calls “deeply flawed and dangerous.”

“This case sets a terrifying precedent,” Grisham warned. “If the state can convict Clarabut, then every law-abiding gun owner in Texas is at risk. The law does not require you to wait until a violent aggressor actually produces a weapon before defending yourself. That’s not just bad policy—it’s a death sentence.”

TGRF’s filing also references testimony from firearms expert Ken Lewis, who stated that gun owners are trained to react quickly in self-defense situations. “If you wait for another person to pull out a firearm, you are going to end up either seriously injured or dead first,” Lewis testified.

The conviction of Clarabut, according to TGRF, sends a dangerous message: that lawful gun owners must hesitate in the face of danger, effectively placing them at the mercy of violent aggressors.

Call to Action: Overturning the Conviction and Defending Gun Rights

TGRF is urging the appellate court to overturn the conviction and send a strong message that Texas will uphold its self-defense laws. They argue that a failure to do so would undermine the fundamental right to self-preservation and embolden prosecutors to continue targeting law-abiding gun owners.

Governor Greg Abbott, in a separate case, reinforced the state’s Stand Your Ground principles, stating, “Texas has one of the strongest ‘Stand Your Ground’ laws of self-defense that cannot be nullified by a jury.” TGRF believes that Clarabut’s conviction does precisely what Abbott warned against—allowing a jury to overrule a citizen’s right to self-defense.

“This court has the opportunity to correct a serious injustice,” Grisham said. “We will not stand idly by while the government punishes law-abiding gun owners for protecting themselves. The Texas Gun Rights Foundation stands with Clarabut, and we urge the court to do the same.”

As this case moves forward, it represents more than just one man’s fight for freedom—it is a defining moment in the battle for gun rights and self-defense protections in Texas. The appellate court’s decision will determine whether lawful gun owners can confidently defend themselves or whether they must second-guess their right to survival in the face of imminent danger.