Weatherford, TX — In a rare but revealing twist, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton has declined to represent the Texas Department of Public Safety (DPS) in a federal gun rights lawsuit — a move that appears to reflect his deep pro-Second Amendment convictions and refusal to defend an indefensible gun ban.

The case, Ziegenfuss et al. v. Martin, challenges the constitutionality of Texas Penal Code § 46.03 — a sweeping statute that bans law-abiding Texans from carrying firearms in places like sporting events, racetracks, and businesses that serve alcohol.

Plaintiffs, including veterans and members of the Firearms Policy Coalition, argue that these bans violate the Supreme Court’s Bruen standard, which demands a historical tradition of regulation to justify modern gun control.

And now, Paxton has refused to play defense.

Paxton’s decision to abstain from defending DPS is not an accident — it’s a statement.

As Attorney General, Paxton has built a reputation as one of the fiercest defenders of the Second Amendment in the country.

He’s sued the Biden administration over ATF overreach, fought unconstitutional executive orders, and repeatedly stood with gun owners against creeping federal control.

So when DPS asked his office to defend a law that disarms Texans for walking into a bar or attending a football game — Paxton opted out.

That left the federal court with a dilemma: if the Attorney General won’t defend DPS, who will?

The Court Appoints a Left-Leaning Lawyer to Step In

Enter Gregg Costa — a former Obama-appointed judge from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, now a partner at Gibson Dunn, a global law firm known for its corporate and progressive credentials.

Costa was appointed by Judge Mark Pittman to represent DPS in Paxton’s absence — a decision that is raising eyebrows among gun rights advocates.

“It’s outrageous that a Republican-run state like Texas is relying on a Biden-aligned, left-wing lawyer to defend a gun ban that strips law-abiding citizens of their rights,” said CJ Grisham, Legal Counsel for Texas Gun Rights.

Costa’s appointment is particularly striking given his judicial legacy and recent shift into high-end private practice.

His record on Second Amendment issues has not inspired confidence among gun owners, and now he’s being asked to stand in for an administration that no longer wants to defend its own gun control statute.

What the State Is Arguing

While Paxton is officially absent, his office still filed a cross-motion for summary judgment, asking the court to dismiss the case on procedural grounds — claiming the plaintiffs lack standing, and that state officials are immune from suit under the Eleventh Amendment.

Noticeably, the motion does not attempt to defend the constitutionality of the carry bans under Bruen — a sign that even the state’s lawyers know these laws are on shaky legal ground.

The Bigger Picture

If the plaintiffs in Ziegenfuss are successful, the implications will be far-reaching — especially regarding the infamous “51% rule” in Texas, which bans the carrying of firearms in any business that derives more than 51% of its revenue from the sale of alcohol for on-premises consumption.

On paper, that might sound like a restriction on bars. But in practice, the 51% designation is a de facto gun ban on countless restaurants and mixed-use venues across Texas — even for individuals who are not drinking, intoxicated, or behaving unlawfully.

Simply walking in with your firearm while sober and compliant can result in felony charges.

Ironically, even in far-left states like Colorado, law-abiding citizens can carry into bars and restaurants as long as they are not intoxicated — a far more reasonable standard that respects both public safety and constitutional rights.

A victory in Ziegenfuss could force Texas to join that common-sense middle ground and end its criminalization of responsible gun owners who simply wish to carry for self-defense in everyday locations.

At its core, Ziegenfuss v. Martin is about whether Texas will start living up to its reputation as one of the most pro-gun states in the nation — or if it will continue enforcing laws that treat law-abiding gun owners like criminals simply for entering a restaurant that serves beer.