Key Takeaways
- The Tennessee Court of Appeals is reviewing the constitutionality of two firearm laws, which a trial court declared void.
- The going armed statute criminalizes carry with intent to be armed and affects self-defense rights, prompting legal challenges.
- A three-judge panel found the laws unconstitutional, applying the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bruen decision criteria.
- The state argues procedural issues, claiming the case belonged in circuit court and that the rulings overstepped boundaries.
- The Tennessee appeal continues as both statutes remain enforceable, though the case is expected to reach the Tennessee Supreme Court.
Estimated reading time: 5 minutes
JACKSON, TN — The fight over whether Tennessee can keep treating ordinary firearm carry as a crime reached the state Court of Appeals on June 23, where judges heard arguments over two statutes a trial court has already declared void.
At the center of the case, Stephen L. Hughes, et al. v. Bill Lee, et al., are two laws. The first is the “going armed” statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1307(a), which makes it an offense to carry a firearm “with the intent to go armed.” The second is the parks statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1311(a), which criminalizes carrying in public parks, greenways, playgrounds, civic centers, and other government property.
The going armed statute is the broader problem. On its face it reaches anyone carrying a firearm to be ready for self-defense, anywhere in the state, including inside their own home. The only relief is a set of affirmative defenses that a person has to raise after being charged. That structure treats a core exercise of the right to bear arms as a crime first and a defense second.
A special three-judge panel saw it the same way. On August 22, 2025, Chancellor Michael Mansfield, Judge M. Wyatt Burk, and Judge Lisa Nidiffer Rice unanimously declared both statutes “unconstitutional, void, and of no effect.” The plaintiffs were Tennessee residents Stephen Hughes, Duncan O’Mara, and Elaine Kehel, joined by Gun Owners of America and the Gun Owners Foundation. The defendants were Governor Bill Lee, Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, and several state and county officials sued in their official capacities.
The panel applied the framework from the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bruen decision. Once a citizen’s conduct falls within the text of the Second Amendment, the burden shifts to the government to prove a historical tradition that supports the regulation. The panel found the state could not carry that burden for a law that criminalizes everyday carry.
Important context for anyone tracking this: the trial ruling is not in effect. The panel issued only declaratory relief, having earlier concluded it could not enjoin a criminal statute. Then, on September 30, 2025, the Court of Appeals stayed the ruling while the state’s appeal proceeds. Both statutes remain enforceable today. Tennessee carry law has not changed.
The state’s appeal leans almost entirely on procedure. Edwin A. Groves Jr. argued for the State that the case was filed in the wrong court, contending a chancery court cannot rule on criminal statutes and that the suit belonged in circuit court. He also argued the panel was wrong to strike the laws on their face when, in his view, some applications are valid, and that the panel granted relief beyond the named plaintiffs.
Judge Andy D. Bennett, who asked most of the questions, pressed that first point. The Tennessee Supreme Court itself appointed this three-judge panel under the state’s three-judge-panel statute. Bennett questioned how the high court could appoint a panel to hear a case it had no power to decide.
John I. Harris III argued for the plaintiffs that this is a civil action over a fundamental civil right, not a criminal proceeding, and that the panel had jurisdiction to issue a declaratory ruling. On the merits, he argued that the state’s “fringe” examples, such as grenades or people already barred from owning guns, did not save the laws. Those same edge cases were present in Heller, Bruen, and Rahimi, and the Supreme Court still reached the core of each challenged restriction.
More from USA Carry:
There is a notable concession underneath all of this. In its own filings, the state acknowledged that the statutes have unconstitutional applications. That is a striking position for the government to defend laws it admits sweep in protected conduct.
One newer wrinkle came up at argument. A judge asked whether the Supreme Court’s decision the prior week in United States v. Hemani, handed down June 18, affected the case. The state said it did not, because Hemani was an as-applied challenge raised as a defense in a criminal prosecution, not a facial challenge like this one. On that narrow point the distinction holds, though Hemani is one more sign of how seriously courts are now taking Bruen’s command.
The Court of Appeals did not rule from the bench. A decision will come later, and whichever way it goes, this case is a strong candidate to reach the Tennessee Supreme Court. The stakes are plain. Tennessee bills itself as a constitutional-carry state, yet it is in court defending a law that makes being armed for self-defense a crime by default. I will continue tracking this case through the appellate process.
