← Back to bills and search results
2025 · Regular session · Senate bill
SB890
SB890 expands the judicial-officer definitions used for Texas handgun licensing to expressly include statutory probate court judges and additional visiting judges.
Official caption: Relating to the issuance of a license to carry a handgun to certain active and retired judicial officers.
Official report lists Senate author(s): Paxton. This does not identify sponsors or amendment drafters.
Bill explanation published · Version and amendment review scope is stated below · Individual amendment records may not be separately annotated.
Bill highlights
Selected points from the published explanation. Follow each point to its source-linked context; conditions and limits may matter.
- SB890 expands the judicial-officer definitions used for Texas handgun licensing to expressly include statutory probate court judges and additional visiting judges.
- The existing judicial licensing process still requires an application, identifying materials, evidence of handgun proficiency and a $25 nonrefundable application/license fee.
- The definitions matter beyond the application process: Penal Code Section 46.15(a)(4) makes the unlawful-carrying and prohibited-place provisions in Sections 46.02 and 46.03 inapplicable to an active or retired judicial officer as defined in Section 411.201 who holds the required handgun license.
- Signed June 20, 2025, the act took effect September 1, 2025.
What does it do?
SB890 expands the judicial-officer definitions used for Texas handgun licensing to expressly include statutory probate court judges and additional visiting judges. It adds statutory probate courts to the active-officer court list. For retired judicial officers, it replaces the visiting-judge category limited to appointments under two specified county-court provisions with visiting judges appointed to serve constitutional county courts, statutory county courts or statutory probate courts. It does not make every retired judge eligible solely by having once held office. Final act; Prior definitions.
The existing judicial licensing process still requires an application, identifying materials, evidence of handgun proficiency and a $25 nonrefundable application/license fee. Retired applicants also face the section’s eligibility conditions and a background investigation. The special classroom treatment for active judicial officers is not a blanket exemption from handgun proficiency. SB890 changes the definitions, not these application requirements. Licensing framework; Proficiency requirements.
The definitions matter beyond the application process: Penal Code Section 46.15(a)(4) makes the unlawful-carrying and prohibited-place provisions in Sections 46.02 and 46.03 inapplicable to an active or retired judicial officer as defined in Section 411.201 who holds the required handgun license. The added groups therefore fall within that existing cross-reference when licensed. This is not blanket permission to disregard every weapons law or carry without a license. Existing judicial-officer exception; Unlawful-carrying provision; Prohibited-place provision.
Signed June 20, 2025, the act took effect September 1, 2025. Its transition rule concerns offenses: the changed law applies only to offenses committed on or after that date. If any element occurred earlier, the former law governs. This is not an application-submission cutoff. Sections 2–3; History.
What changed along the way?
All five versions were read and compared and have the same operative language; the index lists no floor amendments. A separate 2025 law, HB1506, added a retired county-judge category based on at least 48 months of service and used an application-date transition. Those changes are not SB890’s provisions. The compiled September 1 law includes both acts. Separate HB1506 act; Combined statute.
For the full amendment record, open the official amendment index.
Official bill versions
Compare the published text versions in the official text index. A change is not attributed to a specific amendment here without a verified record.
Who could benefit—and who could bear the costs?
The newly included judges gain access to the judicial licensing route and the existing licensed-judicial-officer exception. DPS must apply the expanded definitions; applicants still must complete the applicable process. The act supplies no count of affected judges and does not establish a measured effect on safety. Definition changes; Retained process.
The sole February 23 fiscal note anticipates no significant state or local fiscal impact and assumes the fiscal effects would be insignificant. It does not quantify applicant savings or create a new appropriation.
Official sources
- Bill history and latest recorded action
- Bill versions, analyses and fiscal notes
- Action history and votes
- Amendment index
Catalog report retrieved 2026-10-25. Check the official record for corrections or later changes.