Tennessee’s next governor will influence
whether constitutional disputes are resolved through legislative
leadership or costly litigation. The selection of Tennessee’s next
governor will affect more than the public language used to discuss the
Second Amendment. It may determine whether unconstitutional firearm
laws are examined and corrected through the ordinary political process
or if they will remain in force until citizens undertake more expensive
constitutional litigation against their own government.
Certainly, a governor cannot repeal a
statute by executive order, but a governor can refuse to enforce it.
Actual repeal ordinarily requires action by the General Assembly. But
that academic limitation does not diminish the governor’s importance. A
governor can identify unconstitutional or obsolete laws, propose
corrective legislation, place reform within the administration’s
legislative program, negotiate with legislative leaders, use the public
authority of the office, and sign or veto the resulting bills.
The practical distinction is substantial. A
governor who regards the right to keep and bear arms as a binding
constitutional limitation can lead an organized effort to bring
Tennessee law into constitutional compliance. A governor who is
indifferent, hesitant, or hostile to that right can allow doubtful
restrictions to remain in the Tennessee Code, leaving affected citizens
to challenge those restrictions one case at a time. This is what has
been happening during the three decades of TFA’s existence.
Legislative repeal should be the first
constitutional remedy. When a statute cannot be reconciled with the
Constitution, the preferred solution should be legislative correction.
The General Assembly can repeal the statute, narrow its language,
replace it with a constitutionally supportable provision, or eliminate
administrative practices that extend beyond lawful authority.
That process is generally more direct and
comprehensive than litigation. Legislation can address an entire
statutory scheme, establish clear rules for citizens and law-enforcement
officers, and reduce uncertainty across the state. It can also prevent
the public from bearing the cost of prolonged litigation on both sides
both through taxes used to defend the law and again through private
funds that must be spent to challenge it.
A governor committed to constitutional
compliance should not wait passively for courts to identify every
defect. The executive branch can review existing statutes, regulations,
policies, signage requirements, and enforcement practices. The
administration can then submit specific recommendations to the
legislature and publicly explain why reform is necessary.
That is leadership within the
constitutional system. It recognizes both the legislature’s authority to
enact and repeal statutes and the governor’s responsibility to use the
influence of the office to promote lawful government.
But weak executive leadership shifts the
burden to private citizens. When elected officials – like Bill Lee and
Bill Haslam and many of the Republicans in the General Assembly –
decline to correct constitutionally doubtful laws, the burden often
shifts to individual citizens and nonprofit organizations. Those
citizens must find counsel, establish standing, locate appropriate
plaintiffs, develop a factual record, retain experts when necessary,
survive procedural challenges funded through the state’s use of taxpayer
funds, and finance litigation that may continue for years.
Constitutional litigation is rarely
simple. Even a successful plaintiff may face substantial legal expenses,
uncertainty, delay, and the probability of appeals. During that period,
the challenged statute ordinarily will continue to affect conduct,
enforcement decisions, and the willingness of citizens to exercise
protected rights.
A government that relies on private
lawsuits as its principal method of constitutional correction has
reversed the proper allocation of responsibility. Indeed, such a
government is clearly led by elected officials in open revolt against
their own constitutional oaths of office. Quite simply, citizens
should not be required to sue the State merely to compel public
officials to remain within the limits of delegated authority and to
honor their oaths.
Courts are essential when the political
branches fail. Judicial review exists precisely because legislative and
executive officials may exceed constitutional boundaries. But litigation
should be a safeguard against governmental failure, not the State’s
preferred substitute for legislative examination and executive
leadership.
Hughes v. Lee illustrates the institutional choice. The litigation in Hughes v. Lee
illustrates the practical importance of this distinction. A three-judge
trial court panel concluded that two broadly applicable Tennessee
firearm statutes violated basic and foundational constitutional
protections. The State, led by Bill Lee and Attorney General Skrmetti,
appealed, thereby extending the dispute and asking an appellate court to
preserve the challenged provisions.
Whatever position a candidate takes on the
merits, the case presents several questions that should be answered
directly. Does the candidate believe the statutes are constitutional? If
not, should they be repealed or rewritten? Should Tennessee continue
expending taxpayer funds defending them? Should the responsible elected
officials who created the problem or failed to correct it be personally
held financially accountable or, at a minimum, removed from office? What legislation would the candidate support to address the underlying
statutory issues?
These questions concern more than one
lawsuit. They reveal how a prospective governor understands the
relationship among constitutional rights, legislative boundaries,
legislative responsibility, executive leadership, and judicial review.
A candidate who believes the challenged
statutes are unconstitutional should be able to explain what lawful
action the administration would pursue. A candidate who believes they
are constitutional should be willing to defend that conclusion with
equal clarity. The public benefits from knowing whether a future
administration will seek legislative resolution or leave the dispute to
continued litigation.
A governor’s legislative agenda matters.
Governors do not merely comment on
legislation after it reaches their desks. They help establish
priorities, communicate with committee chairs, negotiate with
legislative leadership, authorize state agencies to lobby for or more
commonly against reforms, propose administration bills, influence
budgetary decisions, and determine which issues receive sustained public
attention.
A governor who places constitutional
reform near the top of the legislative agenda can materially improve the
probability that defective laws will be examined and corrected. That
governor can request a systematic statutory review, require executive
agencies to identify questionable restrictions, and present the General
Assembly with specific repeal or amendment proposals.
By contrast, a governor who avoids the
issue can make reform more difficult even without openly opposing it.
Legislative inaction may result from silence, delay, competing
priorities, administrative resistance, or the unwillingness of executive
officials to acknowledge that existing law is constitutionally
vulnerable.
The absence of leadership is therefore not
merely neutral. It can preserve the status quo and increase the
likelihood that courts rather than elected officials will determine when
and how Tennessee law is corrected.
Constitutional compliance should not depend on litigation capacity.
A constitutional right should not be
effectively available only to citizens who can afford counsel, withstand
years of uncertainty, and assume the risks of litigation. The
protection of constitutional limits is a responsibility shared by every
branch of government. Further, it is a core component of the
constitutionally required oath of office that elected officials are
required to give.
Legislators should examine whether the
laws they enact or even preserve remain constitutionally valid.
Executive officials should administer only lawful authority and should
recommend reform when existing statutes exceed constitutional limits.
Courts should provide relief when the political branches fail to perform
those duties and when the political branches have violated their
constitutional limits of authority.
The identity and philosophy of the
governor therefore has practical consequences. Strong constitutional
leadership can reduce unnecessary disputes by promoting and demanding
legislative repeal and administrative correction. Weak or adverse
leadership can leave doubtful restrictions in place and make private
litigation increasingly necessary.
Public accountability requires specific
answers. General campaign statements of support for the Second
Amendment do not answer these institutional questions. The relevant
inquiry is whether a candidate has a concrete plan to identify, repeal,
amend, or stop enforcing laws and policies that cannot be defended under
the governing constitutional standard.
Candidates should be asked whether they
would support a formal review of Tennessee’s firearm laws and executive
policies. They should identify any provisions they believe require
repeal or amendment. They should explain whether constitutional reform
would be included in the administration’s legislative package and
whether the governor would actively advocate for passage. These are the
types of questions contained in the Tennessee Firearms Association’s
2026 survey.
Candidates should also address what role
litigation should play. Will citizens continue to bear the burden of
challenging the State in court, or will the administration use the
political process to correct constitutional defects before additional
lawsuits become necessary? Should successful citizen challenges be
awarded legal expenses particularly since the restoration of civil
rights and the elimination of unconstitutional laws benefits all
citizens?
A candidate’s refusal to provide specific
answers does not conclusively establish what a candidate would do in
office. It does, however, leave voters without a reliable basis for
evaluating how that candidate would exercise executive influence when
constitutional rights conflict with existing state law.
The central question is whether government
will correct itself. The ultimate issue is not whether constitutional
litigation will remain available. It must (even through Tennessee’s
Republican controlled legislature tried in 2026 to remove that option
entirely). The issue is whether litigation will be necessary because
Tennessee’s political leadership refused to act.
A governor committed to constitutional
limits can lead the General Assembly toward repeal, amendment, and
transparent review. Such leadership can reduce legal uncertainty,
conserve public and private resources, and demonstrate that
constitutional compliance is an affirmative duty rather than an
obligation imposed only after a court order.
A governor who is unwilling to provide
that leadership increases the likelihood that citizens will have to seek
judicial relief. In that environment, the people must spend their own
resources to force the government to remain within powers that were
limited from the beginning.
The next governor’s position on the Second
Amendment will therefore influence not only the substance of Tennessee
law, but also the process by which constitutional violations are
corrected. The choice is between proactive constitutional government and
a system that waits for citizens to sue before it acknowledges its
limits.
A record matters more than a label. Party
affiliation is not a substitute for constitutional conviction.
Endorsements are not a substitute for analysis. Advertising is not a
substitute for a record, and repeated declarations of support are not a
substitute for a concrete governing plan.
Voters should examine whether a candidate has answered detailed surveys, participated in substantive debates, addressed Hughes v. Lee,
identified specific laws or policies requiring reform, identified
incumbents who have been blocking reform efforts, and explained how
executive authority would be used. They should distinguish between a
candidate who has taken clear positions and one who has relied on
carefully managed ambiguity or worse silence.
The warning signs are not difficult to
recognize. A candidate refuses written questions, avoids debates,
declines to discuss pending constitutional litigation, identifies no
existing restriction that should be changed, and offers no timetable for
action. Yet such candidates often claim the mantle of a committed
Second Amendment defender.
That combination should not reassure voters. It should concern them.
Constitutional rights require more than
ceremonial support. The Second Amendment is not campaign decoration,
political branding, a “grade” to be purchased, or a ceremonial phrase to
be displayed during an election and forgotten after inauguration. It is
a restraint on government power and a guarantee belonging to the
people.
Tennessee’s next governor should be
willing to explain, before the election, what that guarantee requires in
practice. A candidate should be prepared to identify unconstitutional
restrictions, oppose improper state action, pursue lawful reform, and
accept public accountability for the results.
Voters should demand those answers now,
while candidates are still seeking their consent. After the votes are
counted and the power of the office has been transferred, silence
becomes far more difficult and far more expensive to correct.
