James Talarico Says Rejecting Gun Control Means “Ignoring God’s Messengers”

Texas Democratic Senate candidate James Talarico has made no secret of his desire to impose additional restrictions on firearms. But one of the most revealing aspects of his record may be the people he has chosen to put in charge of advancing that agenda.

During a May 11, 2023, speech on the Texas House floor, Talarico argued that lawmakers who refused to pass his proposal restricting certain firearms for 18- to 21-year-olds were “ignoring God’s messengers.”

That is an extraordinary claim for a politician to make.

A legislative disagreement over gun policy is one thing. Suggesting that elected officials who reject your preferred restrictions are ignoring a message from God is something else entirely.

And when Talarico's broader record is examined, his comments become even more concerning.

Talarico Wants More Gun Control

Talarico has repeatedly supported additional restrictions on the Second Amendment.

As a Texas legislator, he voted against constitutional carry on multiple occasions and opposed legislation aimed at making Texas a Second Amendment sanctuary.

He has supported an assault-weapons ban and restrictions on so-called large-capacity magazines. He has advocated universal background checks, closing the so-called gun-show loophole, restrictions on large firearm purchases and government-imposed handgun design standards.

His campaign has also promoted raising the minimum purchase age for AR-15s and other semiautomatic rifles.

During a June appearance on the Unity Over Division podcast, Talarico said that the Second Amendment is “not absolute.”

That position is important because Talarico isn't merely arguing for a few modest regulations. His record demonstrates a consistent desire to expand the government's authority over the firearms that law-abiding Americans can purchase and possess.

And Then There Is “Cocks Not Glocks”

But perhaps nothing illustrates the priorities behind Talarico's gun-control agenda better than one particular hiring decision.

Talarico hired the leader of “Cocks Not Glocks” to lead his gun-control portfolio.

The group became notorious for distributing sex toys as part of a protest intended to draw attention to opposition to guns and Texas gun laws.

Whatever one's political views, that is an unusual choice for someone who claims to be seriously addressing the complex constitutional and public-safety questions surrounding firearms.

Talarico wasn't merely associated with the group. According to the report, he hired its leader to help oversee his gun-control efforts.

That decision deserves to be part of the public discussion about Talarico's judgment and his approach to the Second Amendment.

There is nothing inherently wrong with debating gun policy. Americans have every right to advocate for stronger or weaker firearm laws.

But voters also have a right to ask what kind of people a candidate chooses to elevate when deciding how those policies should be developed.

From “God's Messengers” to Gun Bans

This is where Talarico's rhetoric becomes particularly troubling.

On one hand, he invokes Christianity and describes opposition to his gun-control proposal as “ignoring God's messengers.”

On the other, his record includes support for policies that would place substantial new restrictions on the ability of law-abiding Americans to acquire and possess firearms.

That raises an obvious question:

Is Talarico claiming that his preferred gun-control policies are somehow the will of God?

If so, he should explain exactly where Scripture teaches that the government should prohibit young adults from possessing commonly owned firearms—or that banning AR-15s is a Christian mandate.

Christianity certainly teaches the value of human life and the responsibility to protect the innocent. But those principles do not give politicians a blank check to declare their preferred legislation the voice of God.

Christians can—and do—disagree about the proper role of government, self-defense, firearms and public policy.

Political opponents are not “ignoring God” simply because they reach a different conclusion.

The AR-15 Is Not a Political Prop

Talarico's focus on AR-15s is particularly significant.

The AR-15 has become a favorite target of gun-control advocates, but political rhetoric does not determine constitutional protection.

Millions of Americans lawfully own semiautomatic rifles. For many gun owners, these firearms are used for self-defense, target shooting, hunting and other lawful purposes.

The Second Amendment does not say that Americans have a right to possess only firearms that politicians consider sufficiently sporting, sufficiently old-fashioned or sufficiently acceptable.

The constitutional question is whether the government can prohibit ordinary citizens from possessing arms that are commonly owned for lawful purposes.

That is precisely the sort of question that should be decided through constitutional principles—not emotional political campaigns.

Rights Don't Become Optional Because Politicians Dislike Them

Talarico's assertion that the Second Amendment is “not absolute” also deserves scrutiny.

No constitutional right exists without legal boundaries. But that does not mean government officials are free to impose whatever restrictions they find politically desirable.

The First Amendment protects speech, religion and assembly. The Fourth protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. The Second protects the right to keep and bear arms.

The existence of legal limits does not erase the right itself.

The danger is that politicians can always describe another restriction as “common sense.”

Another background check.

Another licensing requirement.

Another waiting period.

Another prohibited category of firearm.

Another magazine restriction.

Another age restriction.

Eventually, “reasonable regulation” can become a system in which the government decides who may exercise a constitutional right and under what circumstances.

That is not a trivial concern.

Texas Voters Should Look at the Whole Record

James Talarico is entitled to his political opinions. He is entitled to advocate gun-control legislation. He is even entitled to invoke his Christian faith when explaining why he supports those policies.

But Texas voters are equally entitled to examine his record.

They should remember the 2023 speech in which he said rejecting his gun-control proposal meant “ignoring God's messengers.”

They should remember his support for an assault-weapons ban and magazine restrictions.

They should remember his opposition to constitutional carry.

They should remember his support for universal background checks and additional firearm restrictions.

And they should remember that he hired the leader of Cocks Not Glocks to lead his gun-control portfolio—a group that used the distribution of sex toys as part of its campaign against guns.

Those aren't isolated comments.

They form a pattern.

Talarico has made clear that he wants government to impose additional restrictions on firearms, including commonly owned semiautomatic rifles. And he has surrounded himself with activists who have promoted unconventional and provocative methods of advancing that agenda.

That is not a minor footnote.

It tells voters something about the direction he would likely take if given greater political power.

The Second Amendment does not need politicians to grant Americans permission to exercise it.

And Americans certainly don't need politicians telling them that opposing a gun-control bill means they are “ignoring God's messengers.”

In a constitutional republic, elected officials answer to the Constitution—and ultimately to the voters—not to their own claims of divine authority.

Texas voters should judge James Talarico's record accordingly.