Skip to content
    Challenging Dangerous Gun Laws

    Bay Area Unitarian Universalist Church, et al. v. Paxton, et al.

    9.2.2020

      Key Points

      1. If a Texas property owner chooses to keep firearms off their property, they must put up at least three different signs to do so -- one for concealed carry of handguns; one for open carry of handguns; and another for long guns -- measuring multiple square feet.

      2. By contrast, many states require a single sticker or sign with a simple picture that measures just a few inches in each direction

      3. Texas’ signage law includes several arbitrary requirements, -- such as letter-size -- that also make it difficult, if not impossible, to print the signs at home. And unlike other state-mandated signs, the signs under the laws being challenged are not provided for free by any state agency.

      Houston Church and Business, Represented By Everytown Law, Challenge Texas Law Intended To Punish Business Owners That Want To Keep Guns Off Their Property

      HOUSTON — A Houston church and a local business have brought a legal challenge to a state law making it burdensome to prohibit firearms from private Texas properties, arguing that the state’s onerous and costly signage requirements for private properties seeking to prohibit guns infringe on their First Amendment right to free speech.  Everytown Law and the law firm Jones Day represent the plaintiffs.

      “The intent of the Texas signage law is to punish people who have a certain viewpoint, and that is not allowed under the U.S. Constitution,” said Alla Lefkowitz, director of affirmative litigation at Everytown Law. “There is absolutely no evidence that requiring property owners to put up multiple large signs on the front of their property announcing that they do not allow guns –  each required to meet a myriad of arbitrary standards – is tied to any legitimate governmental need.  The goal of this law is to be as burdensome as possible.” 

      Case Documents

      September 2, 2020 – ComplaintDownload
      November 18, 2020 – Motion to Dismiss (Paxton, Lemaux)Download
      December 7, 2020 – Motion to Dismiss (Ryan, Ogg, and Gonzalez)Download
      December 15, 2020 – Motion to Dismiss (Houston Police)Download
      January 4, 2021 – Motion to Dismiss (City of Webster)Download
      January 15, 2021 – Consolidated Opposition to Motion to Dismiss (Plaintiffs)Download
      February 4, 2021 – Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss (Paxton, Lemaux)Download
      February 5, 2021 – Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss (Houston Police)Download
      February 12, 2021 – Reply in Support of Motion to Dismiss (City of Webster)Download
      August 27, 2021 – Order Granting in Part and Denying in Part the Motion to DismissDownload
      September 27, 2021 – Order of Voluntary Dismissal (Paxton, Lemaux)Download
      September 29, 2021 – Motion to Certify Order for Interlocutory Appeal (City of Webster, City of Houston)Download
      October 1, 2021 – Motion to Certify Order for Interlocutory Appeal (Harris County Officials)Download
      October 20, 2021 – Opposition to Motion to Certify Order for Interlocutory Appeal (Plaintiffs)Download
      November 2, 2021 – Order Denying Defendants’ Motions to Certify Order for Interlocutory AppealDownload
      November 8, 2021 – Answer to Complaint (City of Houston)Download
      November 8, 2021 – Answer to Complaint (City of Webster)Download
      November 8, 2021 – Answer to Complaint (Ryan, Ogg, and Gonzalez)Download
      December 23, 2021 – Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (City of Houston)Download
      January 27, 2022 – Opposition to Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Plaintiffs)Download
      February 3, 2022 – Reply in Support of its Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (City of Houston)Download
      September 29, 2022 – Order Dismissing City of Houston Download
      October 31, 2022 – Motion to Modify Scheduling Order and for Leave to Amend Complaint (Plaintiffs)Download
      October 31, 2022 – Exhibits 1 and 4; Motion to Modify Scheduling Order and for Leave to Amend Complaint (Plaintiffs)Download
      November 1, 2022 – Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Harris County Officials)Download
      November 1, 2022 – Motion for Summary Judgment (Plaintiffs)Download
      November 1, 2022 – Motion for Summary Judgment Appendix (Plaintiffs)Download
      November 1, 2022 – Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (City of Webster)Download
      November 1, 2022 – Exhibits 1 through 3; Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (City of Webster) Download
      November 21, 2022 – Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Modify Scheduling Order and for Leave to Amend Complaint (City of Houston) Download
      November 21, 2022 – Exhibits 1 through 11; Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Modify Scheduling Order and for Leave to Amend Complaint (City of Houston)Download
      November 21, 2022 – Joint Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion to Modify the Scheduling Order and for Leave to Amend Complaint (City of Webster, Gonzalez, and Ogg)Download
      November 22, 2022 – Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Harris County Officials’ Rule 12(c) Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Plaintiffs)Download
      November 22, 2022 – Declaration of William Taylor and Exhibits 2 through 5 (Plaintiffs) Download
      November 22, 2022 – Response in Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (City of Webster)Download
      November 22, 2022 – Memorandum of Law in Opposition to the City of Webster’s Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Jurisdiction, or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (Plaintiffs)Download
      December 5, 2022 – Reply in Support of Motion to Modify Scheduling Order and for Leave to Amend Complaint (Plaintiffs)Download
      December 5, 2022 – Declaration of William Taylor and Exhibits A through I (Plaintiffs)Download
      December 6, 2022 – Reply in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Plaintiffs)Download
      December 6, 2022 – Joint Reply in Support of Respective Dispositive Motions (City of Webster, Gonzalez, and Ogg)Download
      March 16, 2023 – Order Dismissing CaseDownload

      Press

      In the News

      The Latest

      The information contained in the Everytown Law webpage is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be construed as legal advice on any subject matter. No recipient of content from this site, client or otherwise, should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any content included in the site without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances at issue from an attorney licensed in the recipient’s state. The content of this website contains general information and may not reflect current legal developments, verdicts or settlements. The transmission of information through this site does not constitute or create an attorney-client relationship between Everytown and any recipient or sender.

      Did you know?

      30 percent of guns recovered by ATF in California have no serial number on them, making it impossible for law enforcement to trace.

      Stephens A. “Ghost Guns Are Everywhere in California”. The Trace. (2019). https://bit.ly/2DKkIlt