During the 89th Texas Legislative Session, lawmakers considered House Bill 170, commonly referred to as “Kyle’s Law,” a proposal aimed at expanding civil liability protections for individuals who act in self-defense.

The bill passed the Texas House with broad bipartisan support but did not reach final passage before legislative deadlines expired.

Importantly, Texas law already provides civil immunity for justified self-defense. However, HB 170 was designed to address how that protection functions in practice.

Current Texas Law: Civil Immunity Exists, But With Limits

Under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 83.001, individuals who use force or deadly force that is justified under Penal Code Chapter 9 are generally immune from civil liability.

While this statutory protection is significant, its application can be more limited in practice. Individuals may still be sued and required to defend their actions in court.

There is no automatic presumption of justification based on the outcome of a criminal case, and defendants are not guaranteed recovery of legal expenses.

As a result, even when conduct is ultimately determined to be lawful, the process of litigation itself can impose substantial costs.

Research shows that defending a civil case through trial can cost tens of thousands of dollars, and in some cases far more, depending on complexity.

What Kyle’s Law Would Change

HB 170 sought to strengthen existing protections by modifying how civil courts treat cases involving self-defense. The bill included three key changes:

Presumption of Justification

The bill would create a presumption that a defendant acted lawfully if a grand jury declines to indict, criminal charges are dismissed, or the defendant is acquitted.

This provision would reduce the need for defendants to re-litigate justification in civil court.

Recovery of Legal Costs

The bill would allow individuals found immune from liability to recover attorney’s fees, court costs, lost income, and other related expenses.Economic research suggests that fee-shifting provisions can reduce low-probability lawsuits by increasing the financial risk to plaintiffs.

Alignment of Civil and Criminal Outcomes

By combining a presumption of justification with fee recovery, HB 170 would more closely align civil liability outcomes with criminal determinations and reduce duplicative litigation.

Case Study: Kyle Carruth

In Texas, “Kyle’s Law” is named after Kyle Carruth, a Texas resident whose case highlights the issue the bill seeks to address.In 2021, Carruth was involved in a fatal shooting during a confrontation on his property.

A grand jury declined to indict him after reviewing the evidence.

Despite the absence of criminal charges, Carruth faced civil litigation that lasted for years.

Public reports indicate he incurred approximately $500,000 in legal expenses, ultimately losing his businesses and financial stability before the case was resolved.

From a policy perspective, Carruth’s case illustrates how criminal clearance does not necessarily end legal exposure, and how civil litigation can impose substantial economic costs independent of criminal findings.

A National Comparison: Kyle Rittenhouse

Although outside Texas jurisdiction, the Kyle Rittenhouse case has been cited in similar policy discussions across the country.Rittenhouse was acquitted of all criminal charges related to a 2020 self-defense incident in Wisconsin.

However, civil lawsuits are ongoing, totaling $20 million.

Rittenhouse is currently employed by the Texas Gun Rights Foundation, which was previously invested in his legal battle.

Data on Defensive Gun Use and Legal Exposure

Estimates of defensive gun use vary, but research indicates such incidents occur regularly in the United States.

The National Crime Victimization Survey estimates approximately 60,000 to 100,000 defensive gun uses annually. Other academic estimates suggest higher figures, though methodologies differ.

While only a small fraction of these cases result in fatalities or litigation, those that do often involve both criminal investigation and potential civil liability.

Legal scholars have noted that this dual-track system, criminal and civil, can lead to prolonged legal exposure even when criminal liability is not established.

Legislative Outcome and Future Implications

 HB 170 passed the Texas House by a wide margin, reflecting bipartisan support for addressing civil liability concerns in self-defense cases.

 However, the bill did not advance through the full legislative process before deadlines expired, leaving current law unchanged.

The policy question remains unresolved: whether civil liability protections in self-defense cases should more closely track criminal outcomes, or whether civil courts should continue to independently evaluate such claims.

As similar cases arise, the issue is likely to return in future legislative sessions.

Activists from the Gun Confiscation Cartel are finally saying the quiet part out loud.

In a recent post on X, Brady President Kris Brown declared she is “certain” that guns do not make us safer, adding that this applies not only to everyday Americans, but even to federal officers carrying guns.

Let that sink in.

No longer is it that “criminals” or “violent felons” shouldn’t have guns.

Not even “we just want background checks.”

No. Their position is much simpler than that: guns are bad, period. Even in the hands of law enforcement.

That statement alone blows up the entire “gun control” PR strategy.

For years, the gun-confiscation cartel has tried to dress itself up as “commonsense,” as if they are just concerned moms looking for reasonable solutions.

But the mask slips every time one of their leaders gets comfortable enough to tell the truth.

They do not just oppose you having a gun. They oppose the idea of guns at all.

The “Gun Safety” Scam Exposed

This is why the “gun control” movement is so dangerous.

They sell themselves as “moderates,” but their end goal is always the same. More restrictions and bureaucracy until there is nothing left.

And when they say “guns don’t make us safer,” what they really mean is:

You don’t get to decide how you defend your life. Government decides.

That is the worldview behind every Red Flag law, every magazine ban, every registration scheme, every “permit to purchase,” and every attempt to turn the Second Amendment into a privilege for the politically approved.

Here’s the Problem for Them

Americans do not live in a fantasy world where evil doesn’t exist.

People have stalkers.

Women have abusive exes.

Small business owners get robbed.

Families get attacked in parking lots.

Riots break out.

Police show up late, if they show up at all (as we’ve seen in Minnesota, it is the latter.)

So when a gun-control leader tells the public that guns do not make anyone safer, even federal agents, she is not making a thoughtful policy argument.

She is telling you she wants you disarmed and helpless.

Texas Gun Rights has said it for years: “gun control” is not about controlling guns. It is about the confiscation of firearms and controlling people.

And now their own leaders are proving it.

Across the globe, the struggle between citizens and authoritarian governments is playing out in real time — and Americans would be foolish to treat it like a distant foreign drama.

In Iran, widespread protests have surged across major cities as citizens openly challenge a regime that has ruled through fear, censorship, and brute force.

Reports indicate dozens have been killed in recent days, thousands arrested, and security forces have responded with gunfire and mass crackdowns.

Videos circulating online show crowds chanting “Death to the dictator,” underscoring the intensity of the uprising and the desperation of a population that has had enough.

And in Venezuela, a country once among the wealthiest in Latin America, years of authoritarian consolidation and political repression have shown how quickly a society can collapse when the government becomes unaccountable to the people. Economic devastation, state violence, and political persecution became routine as those in power tightened their grip and crushed dissent.

In both cases, the pattern is unmistakable: when the government has a monopoly on force and citizens are left disarmed and helpless, reclaiming freedom becomes brutally expensive.

The Real Lesson Americans Should Learn

The most sobering truth about tyranny is that it rarely arrives overnight. It comes in stages, and the first stage is almost always the same:

Disarm the people.

Once the population is politically powerless and physically defenseless, resistance becomes nearly impossible. At that point, citizens aren’t negotiating with their government, they’re pleading with it.

That’s exactly why Texas Gun Rights has warned for years that the Second Amendment is not simply about sport, hunting, or tradition. It is about whether ordinary people retain the ability to protect themselves and preserve liberty when government power becomes abusive or lawless.

Freedom Is Easy to Lose and Painful to Regain

Iran’s protesters don’t have a Second Amendment.

They don’t have a codified right to keep and bear arms.

When the state decides to crack down, there is no meaningful deterrent, only the threat of prison, beatings, or death.

And history is clear: when a government is willing to shoot its own people in the streets, it is not a government that fears elections. It is a government that fears resistance.

In Venezuela, the same reality has played out in a different form, where the state, the courts, the media, and enforcement mechanisms were steadily captured and weaponized against political opponents.

Once that power was centralized, the people were left with few options beyond fleeing, suffering, or submitting.

This is the cost Americans must understand:

When you surrender your freedom, you don’t get it back by filing a complaint: you get it back through hardship, and often through blood.

No Compromise Means No Retreat

That is why Texas Gun Rights’ message matters now more than ever:

We must never give a millimeter on the Second Amendment.

Not for “Red Flag” gun confiscation laws. Not for registration schemes. Not for bans dressed up as “reasonable restrictions.”

Not for taxes, permits, waiting periods, or backdoor enforcement traps.

Because every “compromise” becomes the foundation for the next restriction — and the next — until the right becomes a privilege, and the privilege becomes permission.

Iran and Venezuela are not just cautionary tales. They are reminders that governments do not hesitate to seize power when citizens lack the means to stop them.

Americans should not have to learn that lesson the hard way.

Freedom is priceless.

And once you let government take it, the cost to reclaim it is far higher than most people can imagine.

That is why the Second Amendment must remain exactly what it was meant to be: a line in the sand.

The case, Havens v. City of Colorado City, was filed by Texas Gun Rights Foundation attorney C.J. Grisham and supported by the Texas Gun Rights Foundation (TXGRF) on behalf of plaintiff Jason Havens, a licensed handgun carrier who sought to attend city council meetings while lawfully armed

The Dispute

According to the complaint, Colorado City posted signage prohibiting firearms throughout its entire civic center, not merely the specific room where a city council meeting was being held.

Havens repeatedly informed city officials that Texas law limits firearm prohibitions during open meetings to the room or rooms where the meeting occurs and provides exceptions for licensed carriers.

Despite those warnings, Havens alleged he was ordered to leave, physically removed by the police chief, and later threatened with arrest unless he disarmed.

After Havens filed complaints, the Texas Attorney General’s Office notified him that the city removed the signage and committed to complying with state law

Havens sued the city and individual officials under federal civil-rights law, asserting violations of the Second Amendment and Fourth Amendment, among other claims. The city moved to dismiss.

The Ruling

U.S. District Judge James Wesley Hendrix granted the motion in part and denied it in part.

Most notably, the court held that Havens plausibly alleged a Second Amendment violation by the City, allowing that claim to proceed under Monell municipal-liability principles.

The judge explained that while certain locations may qualify as “sensitive places,” the city’s blanket prohibition across an entire multi-use government building may regulate firearms beyond what historical tradition permits, particularly where the ban extends beyond the meeting room itself.

The court also found Havens plausibly alleged a Fourth Amendment unreasonable-seizure claim based on his physical removal.

However, the judge dismissed claims against the individual officials on qualified-immunity grounds and dismissed several other claims, including First and Ninth Amendment theories and a civil-conspiracy claim.

Despite dismissing the individual claims on qualified immunity, the court found that those same individual officers had violated Mr. Havens’ Second and Fourth Amendment rights, but were granted qualified immunity due to the lack of clearly established case law on the issue.

The Second and Fourth Amendment claims against the City remain the case’s core moving forward

Help TXGRF Continue the Fight

The decision underscores a growing post-Bruen scrutiny of broad government gun bans.

While legislatures and municipalities may restrict firearms in narrowly defined “sensitive places,” the court signaled that cities cannot simply declare entire government buildings gun-free without historical support.

As the case proceeds, the ruling places Colorado City’s former policy squarely before the court and adds to the developing body of law clarifying where and how governments may regulate the right to keep and bear arms.

The Department of Justice recently advanced a remarkable argument in federal court: that certain knives—specifically automatic switchblade knives—are not protected by the Second Amendment.

According to the DOJ, knives are supposedly “inherently dangerous,” “easily concealable,” and historically subject to regulation, placing them outside constitutional protection.

That claim collapses under even modest scrutiny.

The Second Amendment does not protect “guns.” It protects the right to keep and bear arms. And historically, legally, and practically, knives are arms—among the oldest, most common, and most widely possessed arms in human history.

The Text of the Second Amendment Is Not Ambiguous

The Constitution does not say “firearms.” It does not say “muskets.” It says arms.

At the time of the Founding, the term “arms” encompassed all weapons commonly carried for lawful purposes—swords, knives, bayonets, pikes, clubs, and firearms. In fact, for much of American history, knives were more common than guns, especially for everyday carry.

To argue that the Second Amendment protects guns but not knives is to read a limitation into the Constitution that simply does not exist.

Supreme Court Precedent Rejects the DOJ’s Argument

In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court made clear that the Second Amendment protects arms “in common use” for lawful purposes.

Knives plainly meet that standard.

Millions of Americans carry knives every day—for work, utility, self-defense, and recreation.

Automatic knives, in particular, are widely used by first responders, military personnel, and civilians because they can be deployed with one hand—often a safety feature, not a criminal one.

The Court also rejected the idea that “dangerousness” alone removes constitutional protection. All arms are dangerous by definition. The relevant test is whether a weapon is both “dangerous and unusual.” Knives are neither.

The DOJ’s Crime Argument Is Unsupported by Evidence

The DOJ suggests knives are especially associated with criminal misuse. But empirical evidence does not support that claim.

FBI crime data consistently show that knives are used in a small fraction of violent crimes compared to other weapons—and far less often than blunt objects or even bare hands and feet.

Moreover, states that have repealed knife bans have not seen increases in violent crime attributable to knife carry.

Just as with firearms, lawful ownership and carry of knives is not correlated with higher crime rates. Criminals already ignore weapons bans. Law-abiding citizens do not.

Historical Restrictions Don’t Mean Constitutional Exclusion

The DOJ leans heavily on historical knife regulations to justify modern bans. But this reasoning is deeply flawed.

As the Supreme Court clarified in Bruen (2022), the existence of some historical regulations does not eliminate constitutional protection.

Many early regulations addressed manner of carry, not outright bans—and often targeted misuse, not possession.

If historical regulation alone were enough to strip protection, then firearms—heavily regulated in certain periods—would also fall outside the Second Amendment.

The Court explicitly rejected that logic.

Knives Are Core Self-Defense Arms

For many Americans, especially those who are elderly, disabled, or live in restrictive jurisdictions, knives may be the most accessible means of self-defense.

They require no ammunition, are reliable at close range, and are often the only defensive tool available in environments where firearms are prohibited.