Tennessee Fights to Revive “Going Armed” Law After Court Rules It Unconstitutional

 

 Video link

On June 23, 2026, oral arguments were heard in the Tennessee Court of Appeals Western Section, before a three judge panel, on the Tennessee case of Stephen L. Hughes Et Al. v. Bill Lee Et Al. The case is a challenge to two parts of Tennessee statutes which infringe on rights protected by the Second Amendment.  The first is the Tennessee Going Armed Statute, Tenn. Code Ann.§ 39�J7-l307(a),38. The statute makes it illegal for anyone, anywhere in the state to carry a firearm or club with the intent to go armed. The second is the Parks Statute, Tenn. Code Ann.§ 39-17-131 J(a), which prohibits carry in large areas of public land. 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.

The Supreme Court created the three judge panel to hear the case in accordance with Rule 54, as meeting the requirements of a civil challenge that:

(1) challenges the constitutionality of a state statute, including a statute that apportions or redistricts state legislative or congressional districts; or an executive order; or an administrative rule or regulation; and

(2) includes a claim for declaratory judgment or injunctive relief;

The three judge Chancery Court, created by the Supreme Court, held for the plaintiffs the challenged statutes were facially invalid. They infringed on rights protected by the Second Amendment. From the last page of the opinion:

 "For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. As a result, the Going Armed Statute, Tenn. Code Ann.§ 39�J7-l307(a),38 and the Parks Statute, Tenn. Code Ann.§ 39-17-131 J(a), are hereby DECLARED unconstitutional, void, and of no effect.

The State of Tennessee appealed the decision. It is the oral arguments of the appeal which were heard on June 23, 2026. Judge Andy D. Bennet asked most of the questions.

Mr. Edwin A. Groves, Jr. submitted oral arguments for the state. The major argument appeared to be a claim the Chancery Court does not have jurisdiction in the case. The claim was Chancery Courts cannot hear criminal cases. But, the case is a civil challenge to the validity of a criminal statute, no a criminal case. The Supreme Court appointed the panel.  Judge Bennet appeared skeptical of the idea the Supreme Court would appoint a court without jurisdiction in the case.

Mr. Groves also claimed the Appelees could not win a facial challenge, because the laws could apply to "dangerous and unusual weapons" and/or that the intent to go armed could mean the same as going armed to the terror of the public.

Judge Bennet asked if the case is about the Second Amendment, because the Tennessee Constitution cannot have less protection than the Second Amendment. This clarified the merits of the case were about infringements on the Second Amendment.

John I. Harris, II. gave the oral arguments for the appellees. He first decreed this was a civil case, not a criminal case, and the three judge Chancery court had jurisdiction. Then he made clear the statutes in question infringed on Second Amendment rights.  He cited law to the effect states may not use procedural mechanisms to defeat a right the federal courts would uphold.

Harris also stated the Supreme Court in Heller, Bruen, and Rahimi held the fringe issues of "Dangerous and unusual weapons" or "going armed to the terror" of the public did not invalidate the facial challenge, because they did not invalidate the challenge in the Supreme Court decisions Heller, Bruen, or Rahimi.

Analysis: It is difficult to understand why the State of Tennessee is challenging the three judge Chancery court on this issue. The Tennessee statutes clearly infringe on Second Amendment rights. The State is primarily arguing procedural issues. It is difficult to see how this benefits Governor Lee or the State of Tennessee.

©2026 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch