Just last week, an armed citizen reportedly stopped a school murderer in Oregon. In Tennessee, could that same citizen face arrest and felony prosecution for saving lives?
On October 15, 2026, a gunman attacked an elementary school in Bend, Oregon, murdering three children and a teacher. According to Associated Press reports and numerous other reports, an armed civilian pursued the murderer into the school and shot the shooter, a murderer by all accounts, with the citizen’s own handgun thus stopping the attack on those in the school. That citizen risked his own life to protect innocent people. The threat was over by the time law enforcement arrived.
Now, suppose this same violent attacked happened in Tennessee – like it did just a few years ago in Nashville. But, this time, a parent or another armed citizen is already in or enters a school, or perhaps an armed faculty member, confronts an active murderer, and shoots him before more children, faculty or others are killed. Does Tennessee law allow the police to arrest that citizen hero for carrying the very handgun used to save those lives? Does Tennessee law allow the district attorney the ability to criminally prosecute that hero for their actions?
The answer is yes. Tennessee’s criminal statutes could expose that citizen to arrest and felony prosecution, even if the shooting was entirely justified. Whether Tennessee can constitutionally impose that criminal exposure raises a separate and serious question.
Tennessee still criminalizes carrying firearms
Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-17-1307(a)(1) makes it a crime to carry a firearm with the intent to go armed. Although politicians frequently describe Tennessee as a constitutional-carry state, the General Assembly has never repealed this general criminal prohibition. And, the fact is that Tennessee is actually not a constitutional carry state.
Instead, Republican legislators have created and maintained an exception in § 39-17-1307(g) for qualified adults carrying handguns under specified conditions. That distinction matters because under Tennessee law an “exception” does not eliminate the underlying criminal offense or automatically prohibit prosecution. Instead, under Tennessee law when a statute refers to something as a “defense” or an “exception” is means something other than what those terms normally mean.
In Tennessee,. therefore, the burden is on the citizen to prove at trial the facts establishing the exception. Under Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-202(b)(1)–(2), prosecutors do not have to disprove an exception when charging someone with a crime. Instead, the accused must establish the exception by a preponderance of the evidence. Therefore, while § 39-17-1307(g) may protect a qualified handgun carrier from being convicted at trial if he or she can prove the necessary facts to the jury’s satisfaction, that opportunity to prove something at trial does not necessarily protect that person from stop, detention, arrest, indictment or prosecution.
Tennessee has not eliminated the crime of carrying with the intent to go armed. It has created an exception that an accused citizen may have to establish during a criminal trial. And, don’t assume that it is any better to have a handgun permit because under Tennessee law a permit does not preclude arrest and prosecution. Instead, a permit is a “defense” to the crime of carrying with intent to go armed and once again the burden to raise the defense is on the citizen. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1308. And, neither the permitless carry exception nor the handgun permit defense are of any benefit if the citizen obtained a rifle or shotgun from their vehicle and went to save lives.
Carrying a handgun on school property is a felony
Tennessee has another statute that creates even greater exposure for our hypothetical hero. Under Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1309(b)(1), (b)(3), possessing or carrying a firearm with the intent to go armed on covered school property is a Class E felony, punishable by up to six years in prison.
The statute separately establishes a Class B misdemeanor for certain firearm possession on school property without requiring the same intent to go armed. And, although § 39-17-1309(e) exempts specified officers and other authorized persons, it contains no general exemption for an ordinary parent or citizen responding to an active shooter situation. Section 39-17-1310 provides narrow affirmative defenses, but none expressly addresses that emergency intervention.
But, consider what this means. A citizen who deliberately carries a handgun into a school to stop the murder of children could satisfy the elements of Tennessee’s school-property felony. The same person could potentially face a separate charge under § 39-17-1307(a), subject to applicable exceptions and defenses.
Could police arrest the hero despite the justification?
Tennessee’s criminal code distinguishes the elements of an offense from statutory exceptions and defenses. Under §§ 39-11-201(a), 39-11-202(b), and 39-11-203(b)–(d), those protections are governed by specific burdens and trial procedures, not a general requirement that officers disprove them before arrest.
Tennessee allows warrantless arrests under specified circumstances when officers have the legally required cause to believe a criminal offense has occurred. See Tenn. Code Ann. § 40-7-103(a)(2)–(4), (a)(12).
Police ordinarily need not investigate and disprove an asserted statutory defense before arresting someone. Federal constitutional law does limit an officer’s ability to disregard information already known that conclusively establishes justification, but it does not impose a general duty to investigate possible defenses.
Therefore, evidence that the citizen intentionally carried a handgun onto school property could support probable cause for arrest, even though the citizen claims to have acted in defense of children. Tennessee recognizes justified defense of another under § 39-11-612, but that justification does not automatically prevent criminal charges from being initiated.
Tennessee courts have already addressed this problem
Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-17-1322(a) appears to provide significant protection. But, a court has concluded that it is a statutory illusion. As written, the statute expressly states that a person shall not be charged with or convicted of covered weapons offenses when the person possessed, displayed, or employed a handgun in justifiable self-defense or defense of another during a crime involving the person defended.
However, the Tennessee Court of Criminal Appeals has interpreted that protection in a manner that can still permit prosecution. In State v. Clark, No. M2007-00496-CCA-R3-CD, slip op. at 2–8 (Tenn. Crim. App. Apr. 10, 2008), a Williamson County father displayed a handgun on elementary school property after another parent allegedly threatened him and his child with a knife. Police arrested the father, and a grand jury indicted him for felony firearm possession on school property. The trial judge determined that the father acted in self-defense and dismissed the indictment under § 39-17-1322.
The State appealed, and the Court of Criminal Appeals reversed the dismissal and reinstated the felony indictment. The appellate court held that § 39-17-1322 did not create an absolute pretrial prohibition against prosecution. Although it directs police and prosecutors not to seek charges when they determine that justified defense occurred, disputed facts concerning justification ordinarily must be resolved at trial. Clark, slip op. at 5–8.
That distinction is significant. A citizen may ultimately be entitled to acquittal but still face arrest, indictment, attorney fees, and the burdens of criminal prosecution. An eventual acquittal does not erase those consequences.
Do Tennessee’s laws violate the United States or Tennessee Constitutions?
Well, its Tennessee….
The Second Amendment protects public handgun carrying for self-defense. In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1, 17, 24 (2022), the Supreme Court held that when conduct falls within the Second Amendment’s text, the government must demonstrate that its restriction is consistent with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.
That standard raises a substantial constitutional challenge to Tennessee’s general carrying prohibition. Indeed, in August 2025, a Tennessee three-judge trial court panel declared § 39-17-1307(a) unconstitutional in Hughes v. Lee. The State appealed, and the Court of Appeals stayed the ruling on September 30, 2025. The official appellate docket shows no appellate decision as of October 19, 2026.
An earlier Tennessee appellate decision upheld the general carrying prohibition under both constitutions. However, its federal analysis employed intermediate scrutiny, a standard later rejected in Bruen. See Embody v. Cooper, No. M2012-01830-COA-R3-CV, slip op. at 8–11 (Tenn. Ct. App. May 22, 2013).
The school-property felony presents a different issue. The Supreme Court has recognized in dicta that schools may be sensitive places where longstanding firearm restrictions may be constitutional. See District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 626–27 (2008); Wolford v. Lopez, No. 24-1046, slip op. at 4 (U.S. June 25, 2026). Even if the Supreme Court’s dicta is later adopted as the holding of the Court, those decisions do not expressly resolve whether the Constitution permits the government to prosecut a citizen who carries a handgun into a school solely to stop an ongoing mass murder.
Tennessee’s Constitution provides an additional argument. Article I, § 26 protects the right to keep and bear arms while permitting regulation of their wearing to prevent crime. In Andrews v. State, 50 Tenn. 165, 191–92 (1871), the Tennessee Supreme Court questioned whether that regulatory power could prohibit carrying protected arms to meet an imminent threat of death or serious injury. The court reasoned that such carrying could prevent crime rather than promote it. Although that discussion did not decide the precise constitutional question, it provides important support for challenging the prosecution of someone who carries a handgun to stop a murderer.
The constitutional objections are substantial, but neither the general carrying prohibition nor the emergency application of the school-property statute has been conclusively invalidated by an operative appellate decision.
Tennessee should not criminalize the people who save innocent lives
The Oregon shooting illustrates a serious problem with Tennessee’s firearms laws. A citizen who intervenes to stop the murder of schoolchildren could engage in conduct satisfying the elements of criminal firearms offenses, including a felony, despite ultimately having a valid justification. That statutory structure creates a disincentive for individuals who have the willingness and capacity to intervene. For example, look at the Covenant murders. What if before law enforcement arrived, a parent violated these two statutes by entering the property with suspicion of a possible active shooter situation but assume that the parent misunderstood the facts or that the parent never actually confronted the shooter. The parent taking what they may have believed to be necessary intervention committed one or more crimes to do so. Would the police or the district attorney arrest and prosecute – perhaps not but the point is that they could.
The Tennessee legislature should examine whether ordinary constitutionally protected carrying should remain criminalized and whether justified emergency intervention deserves stronger protection against prosecution. The possibility that a district attorney might decline charges is not a substitute for clear statutory protections. Worse, some legislators and the Tennessee Firearms Association have advocated for many of the last 15 years that these types of laws clearly violate the constitutions and that they must be repealed and revised. But in each instance, those efforts have been “shot down” by the Republican leadership and the committees that they established. The bills have never made it to the floor in both houses.
A citizen who risks his life to save children from a murderer should not also have to fear being arrested and prosecuted for carrying the handgun, the rifle or the shotgun that made the rescue possible.
Tennessee’s laws should not default to criminalizing citizens who carry with the intent to be armed. Tennessee should have a statutory structure that is designed to protect justified defensive conduct without making citizens depend upon prosecutorial discretion or an eventual acquittal.
Sorry, comments are closed for this post.