Authored by Leigh Gibson, Texas State Director - Gun Owners of America,

The Second Amendment protects more than the right to own a firearm. It protects the natural right of every law-abiding American to defend themselves and their family. But it also serves a broader purpose: preserving the liberty of a free people by ensuring that ultimate power remains with the citizens rather than the government.

The Founders understood that self-defense and liberty are inseparable. Having just fought a war for independence against a government that abused its power, they recognized that a free people must never become entirely dependent on government for either their safety or the preservation of their liberty. That understanding is woven into the Second Amendment.

That raises an uncomfortable question: Do the people entrusted with government power truly believe in the Second Amendment as it was written? Or do they believe in it only until it conflicts with the policies they want to impose?

Texas Democratic U.S. Senate nominee James Talarico provides a timely example.

The Second Amendment is only 27 words long, so I'd venture to say most lawmakers have read it.

The problem is many lawmakers read limitations into the Second Amendment that simply aren't there.

I've spent the past several years at the Texas Capitol as the Texas State Director for Gun Owners of America. My job is to read firearm legislation, testify before committees, work with lawmakers, and hold elected officials accountable for their votes. Before that, my family left California for Texas because we wanted to raise our children in a state that respected constitutional rights.

Those experiences have taught me something important. Almost every politician seeking statewide office in Texas says they support the Second Amendment. The important question isn't whether they say they support it. The question is what they believe it protects.

Their answer isn't found in campaign rhetoric. It's found in the legislation they support and the votes they cast.

James Talarico says he supports the Second Amendment. But listen carefully to how he describes that right.

In a 2020 podcast, Talarico argued that the words "well regulated" justify what he calls "commonsense restrictions" on the right to keep and bear arms.

Like many politicians, Talarico frequently points to the phrase "well regulated" as though it authorizes modern government regulation of a constitutional right.

It doesn't.

At the time the Second Amendment was written, "well regulated" commonly meant properly functioning, well-trained, and in good working order - not regulated by the government.

Talarico is correct that constitutional rights are not unlimited. The real question is who decides where those limits are. Our constitutional system doesn't allow elected officials to invent new restrictions simply because they believe they're "common sense."

Any restriction must be consistent with the Constitution's text, history, and tradition.

Even historical analogs - of which there are few - used by anti-gun politicians to justify modern gun control laws, were focused entirely on violent crime during the founding-era and purposefully did not restrict law-abiding citizens.

The Second Amendment deserves the same respect afforded by every other constitutional guarantee.

That same philosophy appears in Talarico's legislative record.

In 2021, he voted against HB 1927, Texas' Constitutional Carry law. There is no clearer vote demonstrating whether a lawmaker believes law-abiding citizens should be able to exercise their Second Amendment rights without first obtaining government permission.

Then in 2023, he voted against HB 2837, legislation prohibiting firearm-specific merchant category codes that could be used to track gun purchases.

The government has no legitimate business tracking the lawful purchases of peaceable Americans, and financial institutions should never become a backdoor registry for firearm ownership.

During the 2025 legislative session, he also voted against SB 706, legislation requiring Texas to recognize valid handgun licenses issued by every other state. That wasn't simply a vote affecting Texans. It was a vote against recognizing the rights of law-abiding Americans traveling through Texas.

None of those votes were about violent criminals. They were votes affecting the constitutional rights of law-abiding Americans.

This debate isn't about James Talarico alone. It is about a governing philosophy that says constitutional rights exist, but only to the extent government approves of how citizens exercise them.

I've heard politicians tell me they support the Second Amendment countless times at the Texas Capitol. Then, they turn around and vote for greater government control over how law-abiding Texans exercise that right. Nearly every proposal is offered in the name of safety.

The problem is that constitutional rights were never intended to depend upon whether government believes restricting them serves a worthy purpose.

The Second Amendment was written precisely because the Founders distrusted concentrated government power - not because they expected future politicians to exercise it perfectly.

Reasonable people can disagree about public policy. They can debate crime prevention, criminal penalties, and law enforcement. But they should also be honest about what they believe.

If someone believes government should determine who may fully exercise the right to keep and bear arms, under what circumstances, and only after satisfying additional government requirements, then they don't believe in the Second Amendment as it was originally understood.

They believe in a government-managed privilege.

For voters who genuinely value the Constitution, the next time a politician says, "I support the Second Amendment, but...," don't focus on the words that come before the comma. Listen carefully to what comes after it. That's where you'll usually discover what they truly believe - and how they'll govern.