SB1362

Government measures and grants. Covered state entities across all branches, including higher-education systems, and municipal, county, special-district and prosecutorial entities may not adopt or enforce measures relating to these orders unless state law specifically authorizes them. Those entities also may not accept federal grants for implementing, serving or enforcing the covered federal extreme-risk-order laws or measures. The grant prohibition is tied to that purpose, not a ban on every federal criminal-justice grant. Final law, articles 7C.002 and 7C.004.

Article 7C.003 declares a federal statute, order, rule or regulation implementing or enforcing such an order against someone in Texas unenforceable as state public policy if it infringes constitutionally protected due process, keeping and bearing arms, or free speech. That describes the Texas statute’s declaration; it is not a finding here that every federal firearm law is invalid or that a court has resolved a particular federal-state conflict. Final law, article 7C.003.

New offense and exclusions. Serving, enforcing or attempting to serve or enforce a covered order against someone in Texas is a state jail felony unless the order was issued under Texas law. Crucially, the entire chapter does not apply to protective orders issued under the Texas Family Code or Code of Criminal Procedure, or to another state’s protective orders recognized or enforceable under those codes. The law therefore does not categorically block every out-of-state protective order. Existing Family Code section 88.003 specifies requirements for enforcing qualifying foreign protective orders. Final law, articles 7C.005-7C.006; Existing interstate protective-order enforcement.

One of seven House amendments survived. Hefner’s amendment 2 added the full-chapter protective-order exclusion just described. It was adopted May 27 and appears verbatim in article 7C.006 of the enrolled act. The Senate concurred May 30. Introduced, Senate committee, Senate-passed and House committee substantive texts otherwise match; enrollment adds this exclusion. Adopted amendment 2; Introduced; Senate committee; Senate-passed; House committee; Version index; Final law.

The other six amendments failed on May 27 and are not enacted provisions: Bryant’s amendment 1 would have struck the enacting clause; Goodwin’s amendment 3 would have removed the federal-grant prohibition; her amendment 4 proposed a law-enforcement-initiated temporary-order exception with clear-and-convincing evidence, documentation, a hearing within 14 days, counsel/contest rights, a final order no longer than six months subject to renewal, and firearm return. Her amendment 5 proposed local-authority exceptions with notice, hearing, counsel, sworn imminent-danger evidence, court approval and review safeguards. Amendment 1; Amendment 3; Amendment 4; Amendment 5; All dispositions.

Goodwin’s amendment 6 would have made the act contingent on a separate law raising the semiautomatic-rifle purchase, possession or transfer age to 21, with specified military/veteran, law-enforcement and supervised sporting exceptions; without such a law by the stated session deadline, the act would have no effect. Jessica González’s amendment 7 proposed an interim ten-member House study committee on firearm-risk interventions, with five speaker selections and five selected from a House Democratic Caucus chair’s list. Both failed; the enacted bill contains neither contingency nor committee. Amendment 6; Amendment 7; Amendment outcomes; Final law.

Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.

The law limits covered firearm-removal interventions and exposes people serving or enforcing non-exempt orders to a felony charge. People subject to the covered orders gain statutory restrictions on their use; officials and people seeking those interventions face narrower options. People protected by the expressly excluded protective-order categories retain those exclusions. The text does not establish how the policy changes shootings, suicides or crime, and this review makes no numerical safety claim. Final law.

The May 28 fiscal note anticipates no significant state fiscal impact and assumes no significant correctional-resource impact. Local enforcement, prosecution, supervision and confinement costs depend on the number of offenses and court costs. The criminal-justice statement likewise recognizes possible added demand while expecting no significant state impact. These are estimates, not proof that no one will incur costs. Final-listed fiscal note; Criminal-justice impact statement.

Potential foregone federal grants are unknown. The fiscal note identifies $26.8 million awarded to Texas in fiscal year 2024 through two justice/crisis-intervention programs; it says that funding could be used for extreme-risk orders but was not then required to be used that way. A future requirement could cause funding loss. That $26.8 million is neither an appropriation in SB1362 nor a finding that Texas immediately lost that amount. Local grant losses are also unquantified. Fiscal note and grant assumptions; Final law.