Members of the Tennessee Firearms Association and conservative advocates should understand that there are actually two separate pieces of legislation — SB1731/HB1791 and SB1958/HB1971 — that are moving in tandem, and both are scheduled to be heard in the House Judiciary Committee on March 4. Viewed together, these bills would significantly alter the practical ability of citizens and advocacy organizations to challenge unconstitutional state action in Tennessee courts.

SB1731/HB1791 substantially expands the State’s ability to take immediate interlocutory appeals in constitutional litigation. If a trial court denies sovereign immunity, denies qualified immunity, or denies a motion to dismiss a constitutional challenge, the State would gain the right to immediately appeal before the case proceeds further. Other litigants – i.e., the citizens – do not have the same rights under this legislation. In practical terms, that means litigation can be paused unilaterally by the State at the earliest stages, often for months or years. The challenged law remains in effect during that time. The financial burden on the citizen or organization bringing the challenge increases. The government, backed entirely by taxpayer-funded resources, gains additional procedural leverage.

On its own, that shift already changes the balance in constitutional litigation. But when combined with SB1958/HB1971 — legislation aimed at restricting or reshaping how citizens may seek judicial review of the constitutionality of state statutes — the cumulative effect becomes far more significant. One measure narrows or constrains access to constitutional review. The other strengthens the government’s procedural ability to delay or complicate whatever review remains. Together, they create a major structural disadvantage for citizens seeking to hold government accountable to constitutional limits.

This is not a theoretical concern or mere procedural housekeeping.

Constitutional rights are enforced through courts. Advocacy organizations defending the right to keep and bear arms rely on the ability to file suit, survive early dismissal attempts, and obtain timely relief when laws exceed constitutional authority. If access to judicial review is restricted and early rulings allowing cases to proceed can be repeatedly appealed by the State as a matter of right, the result is delay, expense, and increased costs and risks for those bringing constitutional challenges.

Rights that cannot be practically enforced become fragile in real-world application.

Tennesseans should ask why the State requires expanded procedural tools in the very cases where its own actions are being challenged as unconstitutional. Why are special appellate rights being granted exclusively to government defendants? Why are no similar rights extended to citizens or private litigants? The Tennessee Constitution guarantees open courts and remedy by due course of law. That guarantee depends on meaningful access, not merely theoretical access.

Indeed, a more concerning question is why are elected legislators working so hard to infringe, impair or destroy the rights that citizens and advocacy groups have to the courts? Why are elected legislators, like Senator John Stevens, Representative Andrew Farmer and Representative Jason Zachary sponsoring and pushing legislation that has one purpose – to insulate the Legislature from judicial review of whether the Legislature’s actions violated it constitutional authority?

With the House Judiciary hearing scheduled for March 4, time is short. Members should respectfully contact their legislators immediately and ask for clear positions on both bills.

Members may use or adapt the following language:

Members are encouraged to remain respectful, request a clear yes-or-no position, and follow up if necessary. March 4 is fast approaching. Engagement now matters.