On August 22, 2025, a three-judge panel (the “court”) in Tennessee
declared Tennessee’s intent to go armed statute unconstitutional. The
court also declared Tennessee’s statute that prohibits carrying firearms
in parks to be unconstitutional.
Tennessee’s “intent to go armed” statute is contained in Tenn. Code
Ann. § 39-17-1307(a)(1) which provides “A person commits an offense who
carries, with the intent to go armed, a firearm or a club.” The statute
makes it a criminal offense to carry any firearm at any time and at any
place, including a person’s on property or in their own home, “with the
intent to go armed.”
Thus, an officer would have reasonable cause to
believe a crime is being committed just by observing a person carry or
wearing a firearm – even in their own yard. That reasonable cause
justifies an officer in stopping, detaining, questioning, charging or
arresting the individual for that crime. The statutes do provide
certain affirmative defenses, such as the individual had a handgun
permit or that they were in their own home, but those defenses do not
shield the individual from being stopped, questioned or arrested.
Indeed, Tennessee law currently puts the burden on the individual to
raise and demonstrate those defenses at trial.
Recognizing the statute’s function, the court’s ruling stated “As such, the Going Armed Statute
criminalizes conduct within the scope of the Second Amendment as discussed above. Such
conduct is presumed to be constitutionally protected—in other words, this statute is presumed to be unconstitutional—unless Defendants can demonstrate that regulation of carrying a weapon with the intent to go armed is within the historical tradition of this nation.”
Turning to the arguments by Defendants Gov. Lee and Attorney General
Skrmetti, which the court rejected, the court stated “Defendants’
arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive because they make no defense
of nor even address the constitutional infirmity at the heart of the
statute—the criminalization of the constitutional right to bear arms. . .
. Defendants do not satisfy their flipped burden under Bruen and have in no way demonstrated a plainly legitimate sweep for proscribing in toto, subject to narrow exceptions in subsequent subsections, the right to bear arms.”
In striking down the intent to go armed statute as violating both the
2nd Amendment and the Tennessee Constitution, the court concluded by
stating “this Court holds that the Going Armed Statute violates the
Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and therefore also
violates Article I, Section 26 of the Tennessee Constitution. With
respect to the Going Armed Statute, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary
Judgment is hereby GRANTED….”
The Plaintiffs also asked the court to declare Tennessee’s “parks
statute,” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1311(a), unconstitutional. That
statute makes it a crime for individuals to carry weapons prohibited by
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1302(a), a statute which Tennessee’s Attorney
General asserts includes everyday handguns and other commonly owned
firearms. The court, adopting much of its analysis regarding the intent
to go armed statute, also found the parks statute to be
unconstitutional.
In the effort to defend the park’s statute, the state (Attorney
General Skrmetti’s office) had argued that Tennessee’s parks (including
its greenways and recreational areas) were “sensitive places.” However,
the court likewise rejected this argument by the defendants.
Finally, the Defendants asserted that should the court rule in favor
of the Plaintiffs that the determination that these statutes are
unconstitutional should be limited and protect only the Plaintiffs and
not all Tennesseans. The court likewise rejected that request by the
Defendants. Instead, the court stated “Plaintiffs here have vindicated
their constitutional rights. No government official, or the public for
that matter, has a legitimate interest in the enforcement of
unconstitutional laws. Tennesseans that are not party to this action may
unintentionally benefit from the protection of their constitutional
rights, but no right of theirs could be prejudiced by the relief sought
by Plaintiffs. Accordingly, we do not limit the scope of the declaratory
relief sought by and now granted to Plaintiffs.”
This lawsuit was brought by three individuals who are members of
Tennessee Firearms Association and in which Gun Owners of America and
Gun Owners Foundation are organizational plaintiffs. All plaintiffs
were represented by John Harris, who is also the executive director of
the Tennessee Firearms Association.
The defendants were Governor Bill
Lee and Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti in their respective official
capacities in addition to several state commissioners, a district
attorney and a sheriff.
Efforts by the Tennessee Firearms Association to repeal these
statutes in the Legislature have been rejected repeatedly by the
Republican controlled Tennessee Legislature. Those blockades were one
of the motivations for bringing this court challenge.
