With early voting underway in local elections and the May 26 runoff approaching, Texas Gun Rights is warning that the fight for the Second Amendment in Texas is entering a critical window — and most voters are being fed half the story.

The political establishment is flooding key races with polished mail pieces and vague “pro-gun” messaging designed to blur the lines between real fighters and political pretenders.

And in a low-turnout runoff, that strategy works — unless it’s exposed in time.

“They’re Hoping Gun Owners Don’t Look Too Closely”

Texas Gun Rights President Chris McNutt says what’s happening right now is deliberate.

“The establishment is counting on confusion. They’re hoping gun owners don’t look too closely at these candidates’ records until after the votes are cast.”

“Because if voters actually knew who stood with them and who has a history of cutting deals, a lot of these races wouldn’t even be close.”

That’s why TXGR has been ramping up its voter education efforts across the state.

Even the Houston Chronicle — no ally of the Second Amendment — acknowledged that Texas Gun Rights has been driving the pressure campaign exposing John Cornyn’s record on gun rights.

Clear Fighters, If Voters See Them

The contrast in these races is real, but only if voters hear about it before casting a ballot.

Candidates like Congressman Chip Roy have built a national reputation as unapologetic defenders of the Second Amendment.

“Chip Roy doesn’t just vote the right way, he leads,” McNutt said. “He’s one of the few in Washington actually pushing to roll back gun control instead of managing it.”

In the Texas House, Briscoe Cain has been at the center of major pro-gun victories.

“Briscoe Cain helped make Texas a Constitutional Carry state and led the charge to stop red flag gun confiscation laws,” McNutt said. “That’s what real leadership looks like.”

And grassroots leaders like Bo French are drawing increasing support from gun owners tired of establishment politics.

“Bo French represents the kind of no-compromise mindset that’s driving this movement,” McNutt said. “He’s not trying to play both sides, and gun owners respect that.”

All three candidates — Roy, Cain, and French — have been endorsed by Texas Gun Rights PAC, along with Attorney General Ken Paxton in the U.S. Senate runoff.

Cornyn’s Record Still Looms Large

While TXGR says the focus is on educating voters about all candidates, Senator John Cornyn’s record continues to be a central issue.

“John Cornyn has spent years helping the gun confiscation agenda move forward in Washington, then trying to talk his way out of it back home,” McNutt said.

“And now after more than $100 million spent trying to save his career, Texas is closer to losing this seat than it should ever be.”

TXGR argues that Cornyn’s actions have not only divided Republican voters, but created an opening that Democrats are already working to exploit.

A Race That Will Be Decided Now

With early voting underway, TXGR says the outcome of these races will be determined in the coming days.

Because in runoff elections, turnout is low and timelines are short.

“Whoever defines these candidates right now is going to win,” McNutt said. “And if gun owners don’t get the truth before they vote, they won’t get another chance.”

That’s why Texas Gun Rights says it is pushing aggressively to reach as many voters as possible before the May 26 deadline.

Because once ballots are cast, the opportunity is gone.

Chip in now to help Texas Gun Rights expose weak candidates, support proven fighters, and defend the Second Amendment without compromise before it’s too late.

 

xgrThe Senate just confirmed ATF Director Robert Cekada to lead the agency permanently — and within hours, he and Attorney General Todd Blanche were already moving to save it.

They’re calling it a “new era of reform.”

After years of aggressive enforcement, shifting rules, and outright attacks on the Second Amendment, they’re now talking about rolling things back, reducing burdens, and working with gun owners instead of against them.

Sounds good on paper.

But gun owners would be making a serious mistake if they take this at face value.

Because this isn’t about restoring your rights.

It’s about saving the ATF.

This Isn’t Reform, It’s Damage Control

The Department of Justice’s move to roll back Biden-era ATF rules didn’t happen by accident.

It happened because gun owners applied relentless pressure — petitions, phone calls and activism — forcing the issue onto the agenda.

That’s a good thing. But none of that changes the core problem:

The same agency still exists.
Many of the same laws are still on the books.
The same power is still in their hands.

And if that power remains, it will be used again.

As Texas Gun Rights President Chris McNutt put it:

“The ATF isn’t broken, it’s doing exactly what it was designed to do: enforce unconstitutional gun control. The window for reform has passed. The only solution is to abolish the ATF before it’s weaponized again.”

“Modernization” Means More Control

Some of the most dangerous parts of this so-called reform aren’t the rollbacks. They’re the changes being framed as improvements.

The ATF says it wants to modernize. Expand electronic recordkeeping. Streamline compliance. Move into the digital age.

But gun owners have seen this playbook before.

In Washington, “modernization” doesn’t mean freedom. It means building systems that are easier to track, easier to monitor, and easier to expand later.

Digital records don’t stay limited. They grow. They connect. They get used.

And once that infrastructure is built, it doesn’t go away.

What’s being created today in the name of efficiency can be weaponized tomorrow in the name of enforcement.

The Problem Isn’t the ATF’s Behavior

At the same time, the ATF is talking about aligning with federal law and clarifying its rules.

But from a no-compromise perspective, that completely misses the point.

If the underlying laws are unconstitutional, aligning with them isn’t a victory.

It’s just enforcing bad law more efficiently.

Gun owners don’t need clearer guidance on how their rights are restricted. They don’t need a smoother process for complying with federal gun control. And they certainly don’t need a kinder, gentler ATF.

Because that’s the real danger.

A more polished, less controversial ATF is harder to fight. It lowers the temperature. It reduces public outrage. It gives politicians cover to say, “See? The system is working.”

But it isn’t.

The problem has never been that the ATF was too aggressive or too confusing.

The problem is that it exists at all to enforce laws that should never have been passed in the first place.

Gun Owners Should Demand More Than Reform

Texas Gun Rights isn’t calling for tweaks, reforms, or better management of the same broken system.

They’re fighting to abolish it.

Because the reality is simple: the ATF has abused its power for decades. And every time gun owners are told that “this time will be different,” the cycle repeats.

And the moment the political winds shift — the moment the Left regains control of Washington — that same agency will be weaponized again.

Stronger. Smarter. More efficient.

And if there was any doubt about Washington’s true intentions, it should be gone now. Even as these so-called “reforms” are announced, the Senate has confirmed a career ATF insider to lead the bureau — a clear signal that the political class isn’t interested in dismantling the agency, but entrenching it.

That’s the endgame of “reform.”

Not freedom.

Control.

That’s why now is the time to push harder, not back off.

Because if these reforms prove anything, it’s that the ATF knew it was pushing too far — and now it’s trying to pull back just enough to survive.

Gun owners shouldn’t let that happen.

Sign the petition to Abolish the ATF and Repeal the NFA today.

And if you’re ready to take this fight even further, chip in to help Texas Gun Rights keep the pressure on — because the only real reform is restoring your rights without compromise.

 

For the first time in years, Washington is starting to move in the right direction on the Second Amendment.

The Trump Administration’s second term has already taken real action, not just talk.

• The Department of Justice is backing major Second Amendment lawsuits.
• Biden-era restrictions are being rolled back.
• Federal funding to gun control groups has been cut off.
• Banks are being blocked from discriminating against gun companies.
• Veterans’ gun rights are being restored.
• And policies restricting lawful carry — from D.C. to military bases — are being reversed.

 

That matters.

It proves something grassroots gun owners have always known: when there’s political will, things can change fast.

But let’s be clear, this is not mission accomplished. Many more actions need to be taken, but many naysayers have overlooked all of these victories that have been thanks to the relentless pressure of pro-gun Americans.

Executive Action Isn’t Enough

There’s no question the executive branch can move the ball — we’re seeing that right now — but executive action has limits.

And more importantly, it’s temporary.

Every order can be undone.

Every policy can be reversed.

And the gun confiscation lobby is waiting for exactly that moment.

As Texas Gun Rights President Chris McNutt put it:

“Executive action can slow down the gun control machine, but it can’t dismantle it. If Congress doesn’t do its job, everything we’re seeing right now can be wiped out with the stroke of a pen.”

Congress Is Where Gun Rights Go to Die — Or Be Restored

This is where the real problem is.

Congress has had opportunities, and they haven’t acted.

There is no Real National Constitutional Carry nationwide.

There is no federal ban on red flag gun confiscation laws.

Suppressors are still regulated like machine guns under the National Firearms Act.

The ATF still exists.

And the NFA — the root of federal gun control — is still fully intact.

That’s not because it’s impossible to fix.

It’s because too many politicians would rather manage gun control than eliminate it.

As McNutt put it:

“Gun owners didn’t elect Republicans to manage gun control, we elected them to repeal it. Every day Congress refuses to act, they’re leaving the door wide open for the next administration to come in and use these same laws against us.”

No More Excuses — The Window Is Now

There is momentum right now.

There is opportunity right now.

But there is also a closing window.

If Congress fails to act while Republicans hold power, the next administration won’t just reverse course — it will expand on what’s already there.

That’s how we got here in the first place.

Which means every member of Congress must be held accountable: For what they do. And for what they refuse to do.

Rest assured Texas Gun Rights isn’t backing off.

We’re pushing for Real Constitutional Carry nationwide.
We’re demanding a federal ban on red flag gun confiscation laws.
We’re fighting to deregulate suppressors and repeal the National Firearms Act.
And we’re working to abolish the ATF entirely.

Because there’s a difference between managing gun control… And defeating it.

Chip in now to help Texas Gun Rights hold Congress accountable and force real action to restore the Second Amendment.

 

A growing legal challenge to the National Firearms Act (NFA) is gaining attention across the country, and at the center of it is someone Texas Gun Rights knows well.

Kentucky State Representative TJ Roberts is now part of a broader legal effort challenging the federal government’s authority to regulate and criminalize certain firearms under the NFA — a law that has been used for decades to justify federal registration schemes and restrictions on items like suppressors and short-barreled rifles.

But for Texas Gun Rights, this case is more than just another lawsuit.

It’s personal.

A Familiar Name in a National Fight

Years before entering public office or stepping into the courtroom, TJ Roberts was nearly part of the Texas Gun Rights team.

In 2020, Roberts had been in discussions to join Texas Gun Rights as a legislative director. Instead, he made a different choice: to attend law school.

That decision put him on a path that would ultimately place him at the center of one of the most important Second Amendment fights in the country today.

Now, as both an attorney and a state representative, Roberts is helping lead a legal challenge that could force courts — and potentially the U.S. Supreme Court — to confront a critical constitutional question:

Can the federal government continue to enforce the NFA when its original tax justification has effectively collapsed?

A Direct Challenge to Federal Gun Control

For decades, the NFA has been upheld largely on the basis that it is a tax law.

But with the tax component now reduced to zero in recent reforms, that foundation is being called into question.

Plaintiffs argue that without a legitimate taxing function, the federal government no longer has the constitutional authority to maintain the NFA’s registration requirements or criminal penalties.

If the courts agree, the implications could be sweeping — from ending federal registration requirements to dismantling long-standing restrictions on suppressors and short-barreled rifles.

Texas Gun Rights President Chris McNutt says the case reflects exactly the kind of challenge gun owners have been waiting for.

“For decades, the federal government has hidden behind the idea that the NFA was just a tax,” McNutt said. “But if there’s no tax, then there’s no justification. This case has the potential to strike at the core of one of the most abusive federal gun control schemes in history.”

How Likely Is Success?

While no case is guaranteed, the legal environment today is dramatically different than it was even just a few years ago.

Since the Supreme Court’s Bruen decision, courts are now required to evaluate gun laws based on the text of the Second Amendment and the historical tradition of firearm regulation.

That shift is already reshaping how courts evaluate gun laws.

In the case of the NFA, plaintiffs argue there is no historical analogue for the kind of sweeping registration system the federal government currently enforces.

If one of these challenges reaches the Supreme Court, it could give the Court its first real opportunity in generations to directly address the constitutionality of the NFA.

What a Win Would Mean

If Roberts and other plaintiffs are successful, the impact would be immediate and far-reaching.

Federal registration requirements could collapse.

Criminal prosecutions tied to NFA violations could be called into question.

And one of the most entrenched federal gun control frameworks in American history could begin to unravel.

Just as importantly, it would send a clear message:

That the federal government cannot rely on outdated legal theories to justify modern restrictions on constitutional rights.

A Growing Legal Movement Against the NFA

The Roberts case is not the only challenge working its way through the courts.

Other cases such as Silencer Shop v ATF, has also filed a major lawsuit targeting the federal government’s regulation of suppressors under the National Firearms Act.

Like Roberts’ case, that lawsuit argues the NFA cannot stand without its original tax foundation — and that the federal government lacks the constitutional authority to maintain its sweeping registration system.

Taken together, these cases represent a coordinated legal effort to force the courts to confront a question that has gone unanswered for decades.

“What we’re seeing right now is a coordinated push from across the country to finally challenge the NFA head-on,” McNutt said. “This isn’t just one case, it’s a movement.”

More Than One Case — A Broader Movement

This is exactly the kind of fight Texas Gun Rights was built for.

And if these cases succeed, it won’t happen because Washington decided to give up power, it will happen because gun owners forced the issue.

Texas Gun Rights is actively engaged in fights like this — in the legislature, in the courts, and across the country — to restore and defend the Second Amendment without compromise.

If you want to help fuel this fight and support efforts to dismantle unconstitutional gun control, chip in $25, $50, or whatever you can today to Texas Gun Rights.

Because victories like this don’t happen by accident — they happen when gun owners step up and make them possible.

 

A Florida judge recently reversed a firearms ban placed on investigative journalist James O’Keefe, restoring his Second Amendment rights after they were stripped away under a court order tied to a personal dispute.

But while O’Keefe has regained his rights, the case is raising a far more troubling question for gun owners across the country:

What happens when the system disarms the wrong person?

Take the Guns First, Due Process Later

The incident began with a restraining order stemming from a dispute between O’Keefe and a former associate.

That order triggered the seizure of O’Keefe’s firearms, with law enforcement reportedly entering his newsroom to confiscate them.

At the time, O’Keefe had not been convicted of any crime.

He had not been found guilty of wrongdoing.

Yet his firearms were taken — immediately — with the legal process coming afterward.

Only later did a judge review the case and reverse the restriction, allowing him to reclaim his property.

Cases like this highlight a fundamental problem with red flag-style laws.

In emotionally charged disputes — whether personal, business-related, or political — one party can make allegations that trigger immediate consequences for the other.

And when those consequences include gun confiscation, the stakes become far more serious.

In this case, reports indicate the individual who sought the restraining order had engaged in disturbing conduct, including allegedly firing a bullet through a photograph of O’Keefe.

Yet despite those claims, it was O’Keefe — not the accuser — who was disarmed.

That reality underscores a dangerous imbalance.

The person making the accusation is not the one facing immediate consequences.

The accused is.

The Danger No One Talks About

Supporters of red flag laws argue they are designed to prevent violence.

But cases like this reveal a deeper risk.

In some situations, the individual being disarmed may not be the threat at all.

They may be the one trying to protect themselves.

Under red flag laws, courts often act based on one side of the story, before the accused has a full opportunity to respond.

That means constitutional rights can be suspended first, and sorted out later.

And when that happens, the wrong person can lose their ability to defend themselves at exactly the wrong time.

Texas Took Action to Stop This

In Texas, lawmakers took a different approach.

In 2025, Texas Gun Rights led the fight to ban red flag-style gun confiscation laws in the state — legislation signed into law by Governor Greg Abbott.

The goal was simple: prevent exactly this kind of scenario from happening to law-abiding citizens.

Texas Gun Rights President Chris McNutt said the O’Keefe case proves those concerns were justified.

“This is exactly the kind of abuse we warned about,” McNutt said. “No one should lose their constitutional rights based on accusations alone, especially in situations where they may be the one at risk. The Second Amendment doesn’t come with an asterisk for due process.”

While O’Keefe ultimately had his rights restored, the broader issue remains unresolved.

Red flag laws are still in place in multiple states, and proposals continue to surface at the federal level.

For gun owners, the concern is not just about one case.

It’s about the precedent.

If constitutional rights can be taken based on unproven claims, even temporarily, then those rights are no longer secure. They are conditional.

And rights that can be taken first and restored later are not truly protected.

Texas Gun Rights is actively working to stop these abuses before they happen… not after the damage is already done.

If you believe red flag laws should be banned nationwide and constitutional rights defended without compromise, chip in $25, $50, or whatever you can today to Texas Gun Rights.

Because protecting your rights after they’re taken isn’t enough.

They must be defended before they’re ever touched.

 

Washington isn’t backing down.

It’s regrouping.

A new federal gun control push is being sold as the “Virginia model,” a supposedly reasonable, state-tested approach to public safety.

But it’s not new.

It’s the same gun ban agenda that’s been failing in Congress for years — now repackaged to sound more acceptable.

Same Agenda, New Strategy

Federal “assault weapons” bans didn’t disappear when they stalled in Washington. They evolved.

Proposals like the GOSAFE Act already showed where this was headed by targeting most semi-automatic firearms owned by law-abiding Americans.

Now lawmakers are trying a different approach.

Instead of pushing a national ban outright, they’re pointing to Virginia and calling it a “model.”

The goal isn’t to change the policy, it’s to make it easier to pass.

And if it succeeds, it won’t matter what states like Texas have already done.

A federal gun ban replaces it.

Texas Gun Rights Is Fighting Back

Texas Gun Rights isn’t waiting for Washington to act.

The organization is already working to pass the Second Amendment Preservation Act next session, giving Texas real tools to push back when federal overreach comes knocking.

If Washington tries to impose gun control laws that go beyond Texas law, there should be consequences.

That means civil penalties for any law enforcement officer — federal or local — who attempts to enforce those laws inside Texas.

Not symbolic resistance.

Not statements.

Enforcement.

Because if Texas doesn’t draw that line, Washington will.

And Washington isn’t slowing down.

They’re changing tactics.

Rebranding the same bans. Re-pitching the same failed ideas. Waiting for the moment they can push it through.

This is that moment.

Sign the petition now to stop the federal assault weapons ban — and chip in to help Texas Gun Rights take the no-compromise fight nationwide.