TN Attorney General Skrmetti Addresses Hughes v. Lee with Conservative Voters in Brentwood
In early January 2026, Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti openly addressed the Hughes v. Lee unanimous trial court ruling and his appeal of that ruling with voters in Brentwood, Tennessee. Kelly Jackson, of Truthwire News, attended the meeting and has written
about Skrmetti’s comments and his attempts to justify retaining
statutes in Tennessee which he concedes violate the Second Amendment.
As reported by Jackson, who reportedly has a recording of the
meeting, Skrmetti openly conceded that existing Tennessee statutes (not
just the “intent to go armed” and “parks” statutes) are likely
unconstitutional. Yet, it appears, Skrmetti asserts that it was wrong
for the trial court to declare the statutes to be in violation because,
according to Skrmetti’s claims, even the unconstitutional statutes might
in some circumstances be constitutional.
As reported by Jackson:
Skrmetti did not dispute that Tennessee’s gun laws face constitutional difficulties after Bruen.
He stated multiple times that there are “constitutional problems” with
the state’s current statutory framework and conceded that certain
applications—such as carrying a long gun for self-defense in rural
circumstances—would likely be difficult for the state to defend if
challenged as applied.
Apparently, Skrmetti would assert that any of Tennessee’s gun control
statutes which clearly violate the Second Amendment in the minds of
those who understand the Second Amendment should survive a
constitutional court challenge if the statute could be constitutionally
applied in at least one circumstance. Take for example the “intent to
go armed” statute. Skrmetti appears to concede this is a statute that has
serious constitutional problems. But, can it be applied to someone for
example who is a “prohibited person” like a convicted violent felon
(whose rights have not been pardoned or restored)? If so, does that protected the statute from a constitutional challenge to the rights of 7 million other Tennesseans and millions of visitors to the state? Apparently, Skrmetti would argue that it does. In fact, that appears to be one of his arguments in the appellate brief that he filed in Hughes v. Lee on January 6, 2026!
Indeed, has Skrmetti violated that very position with how his office settled the constitutional challenge in Beeler when a three individuals aged 18-20 sued the state for violating their Second Amendment rights? Skrmetti elected not to defend
that statute and instead settled that federal case by admitting that
the 21 year old and up restriction on issuing handgun permits violated
the Second Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment and the Federal Civil
Rights Act.
But, wouldn’t it be true there that the 18-20 year old
prohibition in Tennessee’s law could be applied to deny permits
to individuals in that age bracket who had violent felony convictions?
Curiously, the decision to fight in Hughes v. Lee to retain
admittedly unconstitutional statutes for enforcement may be more
political than just a question of abiding by the constitutions (as
stated in his oath of office) and protecting the rights of citizens.
The political motivation seems clear. Jackson’s report indicates
that Skrmetti chose to defend the statutes, in part because, as he has
argued in his appellate brief, the issue should be resolved by the
Legislature and not the courts. But, is that truly a valid argument to
be made when the statutes are admittedly unconstitutional and the
Legislature has ignored bills filed by both Democrats and Republicans to
repeal them for decades?
Do Skrmetti's admissions compel the Legislators to repeal an unconstitutional statute?
Most Tennesseans who understand the Second Amendment immediately recognized the constitutional infringements caused by Tennessee's "intent to go armed" statute and its "parks" statutes. Now, even Tennessee's Attorney General has apparently publicly stated to citizens that he has similar concerns over the constitutionality of existing laws.
Perhaps Skrmetti's statements (did anyone record them?) will not compel Lame Duck Lee and Tennessee's Republican controlled Legislature to honor their oaths to abide by the constitution. If so, these legislators have no good faith alternative but to immediately proceed with passage of laws that repeal these statutes.
However, legislation to repeal these statutes have had a regular presence in the Tennessee Legislature over the last 16 years of Republican total control. Those bills never get to the floor for a vote. They are killed in small subcommittees and committees in the House or the Senate or both. Committees that have majority compositions of Republicans.
But Skrmetti's statements in the 2026 election year create a problem for the "do nothing" and "stonewalling" Republicans, particularly those in leadership like Cameron Sexton, Randy McNally, Jack Johnson, William Lamberth, Todd Gardenhire, Andrew Farmer and Lowell Russell. With the state's attorney general conceding constitutional problems, these legislators should not be allowed to continue to shield these unconstitutional laws from Legislative repeal. That is what should happen. Is that what will happen?
Your voice needs to be heard. Get on the phone and call your legislators. Better yet, go see them in your communities where they live (well, except for Cameron Sexton who although representing Cumberland county reportedly actually lives in Nashville)
| 
