According to the Legislative Budget Board (LBB), SB 870 is not expected to have a significant fiscal impact on the state of Texas. Any costs associated with implementing the legislation—such as updating school marshal procedures or amending existing regulatory frameworks—are assumed to be absorbable within existing state resources. This means that state agencies like the Texas Education Agency would not require additional appropriations or funding increases to comply with or administer the provisions of the bill.

Similarly, the bill is not projected to impose significant financial burdens on local governmental entities, including public school districts or public junior colleges. Because the authority and discretion to implement the bill’s provisions rest with local governing boards, any administrative or policy changes—such as amending written regulations or revising safety protocols—are likely to be managed within current operational budgets. Schools may already have marshal programs and regulatory structures in place, meaning that only minimal adjustments would be required.

Overall, S.B. 870’s fiscal footprint is considered negligible, with both state and local entities able to accommodate the changes without the need for additional funding or infrastructure.

SB 870 provides statutory authority for school marshals to openly carry a handgun while in uniform on the premises of schools, charter schools, private schools, and junior colleges. This authority would be contingent on the governing board of the school adopting written regulations allowing such conduct. The bill codifies a 2024 opinion from the Office of the Attorney General, which found that school marshals may be permitted to open carry under existing law if such rules were established by local governing bodies.

The bill does not expand who can be a school marshal or alter the current training or ammunition requirements—they must still use frangible duty ammunition approved by the Texas Commission on Law Enforcement. Instead, it gives schools more discretion in how those marshals may operate, specifically by authorizing open carry for marshals clearly identified by a uniform. This increased visibility is intended to act as a deterrent and a reassurance of security presence.

From a liberty-oriented perspective, SB 870 promotes Individual Liberty by affirming lawful gun possession for safety purposes and Limited Government by allowing local school authorities—not state agencies—to set rules tailored to their campus environments. It aligns with long-held principles supporting the right to bear arms in self-defense and the decentralization of decision-making power. The bill does not impose new costs or burdens on state or local governments and thus avoids expansion of state authority or public expenditures.

In summary, SB 870 reflects a policy shift toward transparency and deterrence in school safety without expanding state control or requiring new funding. It respects community governance, honors constitutional rights, and fulfills the goal of adapting school marshal programs to evolving public safety expectations. Therefore, Texas Policy Research recommends that lawmakers vote YES on SB 870.

• Individual Liberty: The bill enhances individual liberty by affirming and expanding the right of trained individuals—specifically school marshals—to openly carry a handgun for defensive purposes while on school property, provided they are in uniform and authorized under written local regulations. This is a direct expression of Second Amendment rights in a high-stakes environment where the capacity for immediate response is crucial. Rather than imposing restrictions, the bill removes existing limitations on how a school marshal may carry, reinforcing the idea that individuals entrusted with campus security can be visibly armed and prepared.
• Personal Responsibility: The legislation presumes a high degree of trust and responsibility on the part of school marshals and school governing bodies. Marshals must still meet existing training requirements and use frangible ammunition, ensuring that the expanded carry rights are exercised with safety in mind. The bill's structure empowers marshals to act in defense of life while also holding them—and their respective school boards—accountable for ensuring appropriate safeguards and oversight are in place.
• Free Enterprise: Though the bill does not directly address market dynamics, there may be indirect positive effects, such as increased demand for training or safety equipment for school marshals. However, these are incidental, and the legislation does not burden or distort market activity.
• Private Property Rights: While schools are largely public institutions, the bill still respects the autonomy of governing bodies, akin to property rights. Charter schools and private schools, in particular, retain discretion over whether and how to implement these policies. By not imposing uniform enforcement, the bill allows each institution—public or private—to control its internal environment in accordance with its mission and community expectations.
• Limited Government: A central feature of the bill is that it does not impose a statewide mandate; rather, it delegates authority to local boards of trustees and school governing bodies to determine if and how school marshals may open carry. This decentralization aligns closely with the principle of limited government, reinforcing local self-governance over top-down regulatory control. The state sets the framework but refrains from micromanaging implementation, respecting community autonomy and diverse local values regarding school safety and firearms.

• HB 3924 (Same As)