{"id":111754,"date":"2025-08-22T23:38:47","date_gmt":"2025-08-23T04:38:47","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=111754"},"modified":"2025-08-22T23:38:47","modified_gmt":"2025-08-23T04:38:47","slug":"111754","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/?p=111754","title":{"rendered":""},"content":{"rendered":"

Tennessee\u2019s \u201cintent to go armed\u201d and \u201cparks\u201d statutes declared unconstitutional<\/a><\/p>\n

On August 22, 2025, a three-judge panel (the \u201ccourt\u201d) in Tennessee declared Tennessee\u2019s intent to go armed statute unconstitutional. The court also declared Tennessee\u2019s statute that prohibits carrying firearms in parks to be unconstitutional.<\/p>\n

Tennessee\u2019s \u201cintent to go armed\u201d statute is contained in Tenn. Code Ann. \u00a7 39-17-1307(a)(1) which provides \u201cA person commits an offense who carries, with the intent to go armed, a firearm or a club.\u201d The statute makes it a criminal offense to carry any firearm at any time and at any place, including a person\u2019s on property or in their own home, \u201cwith the intent to go armed.\u201d Thus, an officer would have reasonable cause to believe a crime is being committed just by observing a person carry or wearing a firearm \u2013 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.<\/p>\n

Recognizing the statute\u2019s function, the court\u2019s ruling stated \u201cAs 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\u2014in other words, this statute is presumed to
\nbe\u00a0unconstitutional<\/em>\u2014unless Defendants can demonstrate that regulation of carrying a weapon with the intent to go armed is within the historical tradition of this nation.\u201d<\/p>\n

Turning to the arguments by Defendants Gov. Lee and Attorney General Skrmetti, which the court rejected, the court stated \u201cDefendants\u2019 arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive because they make no defense of nor even address the constitutional infirmity at the heart of the statute\u2014the criminalization of the constitutional right to bear arms. . . . Defendants do not satisfy their flipped burden under\u00a0Bruen<\/em>\u00a0and have in no way demonstrated a plainly legitimate sweep for proscribing in\u00a0toto<\/em>, subject to narrow exceptions in subsequent subsections, the right to bear arms.\u201d<\/p>\n

In striking down the intent to go armed statute as violating both the 2nd Amendment and the Tennessee Constitution, the court concluded by stating \u201cthis 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\u2019 Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED\u2026.\u201d<\/p>\n

The Plaintiffs also asked the court to declare Tennessee\u2019s \u201cparks statute,\u201d Tenn. Code Ann. \u00a7 39-17-1311(a), unconstitutional. That statute makes it a crime for individuals to carry weapons prohibited by Tenn. Code Ann. \u00a7 39-17-1302(a), a statute which Tennessee\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

In the effort to defend the park\u2019s statute, the state (Attorney General Skrmetti\u2019s office) had argued that Tennessee\u2019s parks (including its greenways and recreational areas) were \u201csensitive places.\u201d However, the court likewise rejected this argument by the defendants.<\/p>\n

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 \u201cPlaintiffs 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.\u201d<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n

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.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Tennessee\u2019s \u201cintent to go armed\u201d and \u201cparks\u201d statutes declared unconstitutional On August 22, 2025, a three-judge panel (the \u201ccourt\u201d) in Tennessee declared Tennessee\u2019s intent to go armed statute unconstitutional. The court also declared Tennessee\u2019s statute that prohibits carrying firearms in parks to be unconstitutional. Tennessee\u2019s \u201cintent to go armed\u201d statute is contained in Tenn. Code … Continue reading “”<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[23,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-111754","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-courts","category-rkba"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/111754","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=111754"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/111754\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":111755,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/111754\/revisions\/111755"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=111754"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=111754"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/milesfortis.com\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=111754"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}