“Constitutional Carry Clash” – Tennessee Gun Laws Ruled Illegal

Tennessee just had a legal earthquake: a three-judge chancery panel struck down two long-standing state gun restrictions as unconstitutional. According to attorney William Kirk of Washington Gun Law, this “craziest gun case in America right now” grew out of the odd reality that Tennessee adopted constitutional carry in 2021 yet still kept a catch-all crime on the books that effectively criminalized carrying a firearm “with the intent to go armed.” His point is blunt: for a state that prides itself on robust Second Amendment protections, keeping that statute alive never made much sense.

The Case and the Players: Hughes v. Lee

The ruling comes from Hughes v. Lee, decided by a three-judge panel of the Tennessee Chancery Court (Gibson County) on August 22, 2025. As the order explains, plaintiffs included individual Tennesseans and Gun Owners of America (GOA) and its foundation. Defendants included Governor Bill Lee, Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, and several department heads and local officials. The plaintiffs brought facial constitutional challenges (not “as-applied”) under Article I, §26 of the Tennessee Constitution – and, crucially, the court assessed those claims under the Second Amendment framework articulated by the U.S. Supreme Court.

What Was Struck Down – And Statewide

The panel’s order declares two statutes “unconstitutional, void, and of no effect” statewide:

• Tenn. Code Ann. §39-17-1307(a) (the “Going Armed” statute), which made it a crime to carry “with the intent to go armed.”
• Tenn. Code Ann. §39-17-1311(a) (the “Parks” statute), which barred carrying (open or concealed) “with the intent to go armed” in public parks, playgrounds, civic centers, and other government recreational property.

The court emphasized that other subsections of §39-17-1307 remain in effect (except §1307(g), which only served as an exception to the now-voided subsection (a)). In other words: the panel surgically targeted the two provisions it found irreconcilable with the right to bear arms. 

Why “Intent to Go Armed” Failed the Bruen Test

The panel’s central holding is stark: by criminalizing the intent to be “armed and ready” for defensive or offensive action, §1307(a) criminalized the Second Amendment’s “bear arms” component itself. The order quotes Heller and Bruen to define “bear arms” as the right to carry for potential confrontation – and then contrasts that with Tennessee case law (e.g., Moorefield, Liles, Heaton, Taylor) that historically construed “going armed” to include carrying for self-defense. That mismatch doomed the statute. The panel concluded there can be no historical tradition supporting a law that outlaws the core conduct the Second Amendment protects.

Parks Weren’t “Sensitive Places,” the Panel Said

On §1311(a), the state argued that parks and civic centers are “sensitive places.” The panel disagreed. Tracing Heller and Bruen, the order notes that historically recognized sensitive places include legislative assemblies, polling places, and courthouses, with schools often treated separately and narrowly. By contrast, parks, playgrounds, and civic centers are recreational, not venues where core governmental functions are exercised under conditions that historically justified total bans. The court was careful to heed Bruen’s warning: label too much as “sensitive,” and you eviscerate the general right to carry in public for self-defense.

The Court First Cleared the Procedural Hurdles

Before reaching the merits, the panel addressed jurisdiction and standing. Even though chancery courts normally don’t enjoin criminal statutes, the three-judge-panel statute requires such courts to “hear and determine” these constitutional challenges – and declaratory relief remains available. The panel also held the plaintiffs had standing to sue the Governor and Attorney General, declining to dismiss them. This mattered because the plaintiffs pursued facial relief aimed at statewide enforcement, not a narrow as-applied fix.

William Kirk: “How Did This Law Survive in Tennessee?”

In his breakdown, William Kirk highlights how unusual it is that Tennessee – a constitutional-carry state since 2021 – still had a statute criminalizing the act of carrying with intent to be armed. He notes that a 2012 bill (HB 3499) to clarify and exempt permit holders went nowhere, and even after constitutional carry, the “going armed” section remained on the books. Kirk also underscores that the Attorney General is “fighting like holy hell” to keep the law alive and intends to appeal – another reason he calls this the wildest gun case running right now.

A Two-Century Legal Relic Meets a New Standard

Kirk points to an academic history noting Tennessee’s first going-armed law in 1801, rooted in the Statute of Northampton, and how variants have lingered for over 200 years. The panel’s order nods to that lineage – but under Bruen’s methodology, history must align with the Second Amendment’s scope as understood at the founding (and possibly at 1868, depending on the court). The key point both sources converge on: historical limits addressed terrorizing or affrays, not the peaceable act of carrying for self-defense. That distinction is where the old Tennessee construct collides with modern constitutional analysis.

The AG’s “Floodgates” Argument – and Why It Rings Hollow

Kirk reports the Attorney General warns that striking §1307(a) could unleash a wave of otherwise illegal carry – by underage or intoxicated individuals, for example. Kirk’s rejoinder is practical: if there are gaps, the legislature can fix them next session with targeted statutes (e.g., clear prohibitions on minors, intoxicated carry, or carry in genuinely sensitive sites). The panel doesn’t venture into policy fixes, but its reasoning invites narrow, historically grounded regulations rather than sweeping bans that swallow the right. I agree with Kirk here – precision beats panics.

What Changes on the Ground Right Now

Per the order, §1307(a) and §1311(a) are void statewide. That means the generic crime of carrying “with the intent to go armed” is gone, and the blanket ban on carry in public parks and similar recreational government property is gone too. The order makes clear that other subsections of §1307 still apply, so existing prohibitions (outside of the voided (a) provision and its dependent (g)) remain. Practically, Tennesseans still must observe all other valid state and federal disqualifiers. And because appeals are anticipated, as Kirk emphasizes, this area is fluid.

Winners, Losers, and the Constitutional-Carry Throughline

The immediate winner is doctrinal clarity: Tennessee’s constitutional carry now better matches the constitutional standard. The losers, arguably, are broad prophylactic laws that criminalized mere readiness. That said, nothing in the ruling prevents Tennessee from enacting narrow rules consistent with history – e.g., on domestic-violence orders, courthouses, polling places, or schools (each of which carries its own jurisprudence). The key is to legislate with a scalpel, not a sledgehammer. 

Regulate the Edge Cases, Respect the Core

This ruling threads a line the Supreme Court has been sketching since Heller: the right is individual, public carry is part of it, and history matters. If the state worries about minors, intoxication, or true sensitive places, it should say so plainly and narrowly. Broad “intent to go armed” language was always going to collide with Bruen. I’d expect the General Assembly to answer with specific conduct-based prohibitions and clear sensitive-place definitions that can survive historical-tradition scrutiny.

What to Watch Next

According to William Kirk, the Attorney General plans to appeal, framing this as a public-safety necessity. Meanwhile, the order stands as a comprehensive roadmap on jurisdiction, standing, facial challenges, and the Bruen analysis. Expect ripple effects: training bulletins to law enforcement, revised signage in parks, and fresh legislation that tightens who may carry under what conditions rather than whether peaceable citizens may carry at all. However this plays out, both Kirk’s commentary and the panel’s opinion make one thing clear: in Tennessee, the constitutional-carry debate has shifted from if to how – and courts will insist the how tracks history.