On August 22, 2025, a panel of three Tennessee judges ruled that
Tennessee’s “intent to go armed” statute violates the Tennessee
Constitution and the Second Amendment. The court also declared
unconstitutional Tennessee’s statute which makes it a criminal offense
to merely carry certain weapons in parks and recreational areas even if
for self-defense. See, Stephen Hughes, et al., v. Bill Lee, et al., Gibson Chancery No: 24475. (This ruling was discussed in more detail in two prior posts issued on August 22 and August 23.) That ruling has generated many questions such as “is it in effect now”?
The court’s conclusion states: “the Going Armed Statute, Tenn. Code
Ann. § 39-17-l307(a), and the Parks Statute, Tenn. Code Ann. §
39-17-1311(a), are hereby DECLARED unconstitutional, void, and of no effect.” (emphasis added and footnote omitted)
On its face, the ruling not only declares these statutes
unconstitutional but also declares that they are both “void” and “of no
effect.” Thus, it would be reasonable for people to draw from that
ruling, which is correctly stated, that these statutes are presently
void and unenforceable. Indeed, it is likely that any government
official or officer who seeks to enforce these voided statutes after the
date of the ruling may be doing so at risk of being held accountable
for federal civil rights violations.
However, anyone reading this needs to do so with an understanding
that a ruling typically is not completely final at this stage.
First, the ruling was one that both granted summary judgment to the
Plaintiffs and denied it to the government Defendants. As such, the
ruling likely resolves all issues that were pending before the court
(with the exception of the requests for legal expenses and fees).
Assuming that is accurate, either party can still ask the court to alter
or amend the ruling under Tennessee’s Rules of Civil Procedure (see,
e.g., Rule 59, Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure) and would have at
least 30 days to make such request.
Second, assuming that the ruling is not altered or amended by the
court, either party could appeal from the ruling. Such appeals
typically have to be initiated within 30 days. (Rule 4, Tennessee Rules
of Appellate Procedure).
Under either of these two options it will be at least 30 days before
the ruling is “final” but it could easily be longer if Governor Bill Lee
or Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, or any of the other Defendants,
decided to ask the three-judge panel to revise its ruling or if they
appeal. Of course, doing either of those creates the uncomfortable
paradox that those Defendants would be expending taxpayer funds seeking
to preserve unconstitutional statutes while at the same time they have
each taken an oath of office to uphold and defend the constitutions and
to protect the rights of citizens. Indeed, it is possible that one or
more appeals to drag this issue through the courts for several more
years.
A third consideration is that while these statutes may have been
declared unconstitutional, void and of no effect, the Legislature, which
has refused to repeal these statutes for decades, will be back in
session in January 2026. While certain Legislators are already
celebrating this ruling since they have tried to repeal these statutes,
others including several of those in leadership are likely already
scheming as to how they could gut the ruling by passing new legislation.
Indeed, one particular legislator in the House would likely be telling
others that the Legislature can and should pass new, slightly different
laws doing essentially the same thing, and those laws would be
enforceable for years or decades until someone successfully challenges
them in the future.
Thus, government officials must tread lightly until the status of the
ruling finalizes. Should they take action to enforce these laws, they
put themselves individually and the government entities at risk of
lawsuits claiming, for example, federal civil rights violations.
District attorneys and judges must consider whether pending prosecutions
can or should continue. But, by the same measure, individuals must
weigh the risk of relying on the ruling prior to any possible revision
or appellate reversal.
Of course, almost all this uncertainty regarding the ruling would end
if Governor Bill Lee and Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti would
simply announce today that they are accepting the court’s ruling and
that there will be no appeal. It might also be relevant if at least
the top contenders for governor in the 2026 elections would issue a
unanimous demand on the existing officials to accept the ruling and
consent to its finality.
If you appreciate this effort, this ruling and TFA’s dedication to
protecting our rights, please consider joining and supporting TFA by
being a member. Further, if you would like to help fund this and other
litigation efforts, please consider a tax deductible contribution to the
Tennessee Firearms Foundation.
Tennessee Firearms Association cannot give legal advice and if you
need assistance in a specific set of facts you should consult an
attorney.
