Posted on 07/01/2026 4:02:35 AM PDT by marktwain
Tennessee’s attempt to revive two gun-control statutes moved to the Court of Appeals on June 23, 2026, as judges heard argument in Stephen L. Hughes, et al. v. Bill Lee, et al., a major right-to-carry case challenging the state’s “Going Armed” law and its ban on carrying firearms in many public recreational areas.
The case stems from a ruling by a special three-judge Chancery Court panel that declared Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1307(a)(1), the state’s “Going Armed” statute, and Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1311(a), the Parks Statute, unconstitutional, void, and of no effect.
At issue is whether Tennessee can continue treating ordinary public carry as a criminal offense under a vague “intent to go armed” theory, and whether the state can broadly prohibit carry across large areas of public land. For gun owners, the case is about far more than technical statutory language. It is about whether Tennessee’s carry laws can survive the Supreme Court’s modern Second Amendment test after Heller, Bruen, and Rahimi. The laws are leftovers from the Reconstruction era, when they were designed to keep freed slaves and other disfavored groups disarmed. Here is a link to a copy of the order of the three judge panel.
The case was filed as a civil lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the two statutes. The case was referred from the Chancery Court in Gibson County. Chancery Courts in Tennessee are equity courts. They do not hear criminal cases. The Gibson County Court referred the case to the Tennessee Supreme Court, which created a three judge panel Chancery Court, as required by Tennessee law, specifically to hear civil cases challenging the constitutionality of Tennessee statutes.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
“ It is difficult to discern what Governor Bill Lee gains through this bizzare attempt to hold on to these Reconstruction era laws.”
It is the duty of a Governor to defend existing laws whether he likes them or not. He doesn’t get to pick and choose. People here went nuts when Biden simply decided not to enforce immigration laws.
L
Is it the Governor’s duty to defend unconstitutional laws?
Is it the Governor’s duty to appeal court decisions of where laws have been declared unconstitutional?
I do not believe a governor has a duty to defend laws which violate the Constitution. The governor took an oath to defend the Constitution.
It’s the old Limbaugh adage, “Demonstrate absurd by being absurd”.
One way to get bad laws off the books is to enforce them.
EC
Not necessarily, Florida law prevented open carry. When a court deemed the law unconstitutional, the AG (and by proxy, Governor) said they would no longer enforce the law in light of the decision. This has trickled through other onerous gun laws passed after the Stoneman school shooting. The AG is essentially saying we’re not enforcing it.
“Is it the Governor’s duty to defend unconstitutional laws?”
It’s not the job of the Governor to determine if a law is unconstitutional. That’s for the courts. If he believes it is unconstitutional he can call on the legislature to repeal it.
L
“The AG is essentially saying we’re not enforcing it.”
So the next Dem AG can enforce it then. The proper way to do it is have the legislature repeal it.
L
That right there is the thing that drives me plumb crazy.!
It's the job of the law enforcement officer to enforce the law, as it's written.! NOT do what his commie boss wants him to do. If his boss doesn't like the law, let him get the law rewritten.
I'm of the opinion that, knowingly not enforcing the law is a crime in itself, perhaps even making the officer himself an accomplice in the crime.....seemingly so anyway. (?)
You really need to read the highly suppressed and now out of print 1982 Senate report on the RKBA. I have a paper copy from the US Government printing office.
Here is an on line copy.
https://guncite.com/journals/senrpt/senrpt.html
“The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.”
19th century cases
16. * Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, at 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52, at 54 (1878).
“If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the (p.17)penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of constitutional privilege.”
17. * Jennings v. State, 5 Tex. Crim. App. 298, at 300-01 (1878).
“We believe that portion of the act which provides that, in case of conviction, the defendant shall forfeit to the county the weapon or weapons so found on or about his person is not within the scope of legislative authority. * * * One of his most sacred rights is that of having arms for his own defence and that of the State. This right is one of the surest safeguards of liberty and self-preservation.”
18. * Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165, 8 Am. Rep. 8, at 17 (1871).
“The passage from Story (Joseph Story: Comments on the Constitution) shows clearly that this right was intended, as we have maintained in this opinion, and was guaranteed to and to be exercised and enjoyed by the citizen as such, and not by him as a soldier, or in defense solely of his political rights.”
19. * Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243, at 251 (1846).
“’The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed.’ The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, and not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State.”
And the SCOTUS case that led to the Civil War..
Are Negros citizens...Dred Scott
“It would give to persons of the negro race, who are recognized as citizens in any one state of the Union, the right to enter every other state, whenever they pleased.... and it would give them full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might meet; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to KEEP AND CARRY ARMS wherever they went.”
Paragraph 77 in the link below.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0060_0393_ZO.html
I have the same opinion about marijuana laws. If it is against the law, it is against the law. Either repeal the law or enforce it.
By having all these las on the books that are just not being enforced it gives government more power to come after people selectively that they just don’t like.
That, in itself, is the very fundamental difference between a republic and a (spit) democracy. A republic is run by the word of law. The democracy is run by the politician who is trying to gauge what the "majority" of the "people" want (or where the votes, legal or illegal are going.) so he can stay in office. He becomes a dictator and a tyrant, law and order goes out the window.
Democracy's ALWAYS devolve into something much worse than what they started....
The law was ruled unconstitutional under the Tennessee Constitution. Is it the governor’s job to uphold unconstitutional laws and to challenge the ruling in court/
Undre the current law, it is possible for the police to arrest you and charge you with “the intent to go armed” even if you have a valid carry permit just because the feel like it.
The courts did rule it unconstitutional. If the governor was as pro 2A as he claims, he wouldn’t have appealed the decision.
“The law was ruled unconstitutional under the Tennessee Constitution.”
I was unaware of that.
Thanks. That changes my opinion on this.
Best,
L
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.