Constitutional rights are not campaign promises. They are obligations that elected officials take a sworn oath to honor.
As the 2027 legislative session approaches, Tennessee’s gun owners face a familiar and recurring problem. For sixteen years, Republicans have controlled the governor’s office and maintained super majorities in the Tennessee General Assembly. During that period, elected officials have repeatedly promised to defend the rights protected by the Second Amendment. Yet Tennessee continues to enforce laws that criminalize the carrying of firearms, restrict lawful possession in numerous public and private places, and impose limitations on constitutionally protected conduct. Political control has changed hands occasionally within the Republican Party, but many of the unconstitutional restrictions remain.
The November 2026 election results yielded that Marsha Blackburn was elected Tennessee’s next governor by a minority vote with a narrow Democrat margin. Even then, she did not provide specific answers to the Tennessee Firearms Association’s 27-question survey concerning the repeal of existing firearms restrictions. She declined repeated invitations to discuss her positions in TFA interviews. Her refusal to answer those questions does not mean that she opposes the proposed reforms because her position on these reforms is unknown. But, her refusal does establish that voters received no specific commitments from her on those issues. Her tenure as governor and her administration, including the Department of Safety and the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation, must now be judged by its actions rather than generalized assurances of support for the Second Amendment.
The Tennessee Firearms Association believes that 2027 must mark a fundamental change in how constitutional rights are addressed by the General Assembly and the governor. The objective will not be achieved with more ceremonial resolutions, minor adjustments to existing restrictions, or political speeches congratulating elected officials for respecting rights that government has no authority to infringe. The objective must involve substantive changes in Tennessee law that recognize and protect the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. The objective may also require material changes in the individuals appointed to administer certain issues in state and local agencies.
The Constitution Is Always the Starting Point
The Second Amendment mandates that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that this prohibition extends to individual self-defense and the carrying of firearms with the intent to be armed, even outside the home (District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008); McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010); New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022)). In Bruen, the Court held that when the Second Amendment’s text covers an individual’s conduct, for contextual Tennessee example – carrying “with the intent to go armed,” the government must justify its regulation by demonstrating consistency with the nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation as of 1791. That is a constitutional requirement and as such it is not subject to a political preference or choice.
Tennessee’s Constitution also recognizes the right to keep and bear arms. Although Article I, Section 26 as added in 1870 contains language permitting the Legislature to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to preventing crime, that provision cannot be treated as unlimited permission to restrict constitutional rights and it never was. The Tennessee Constitution also declares that governmental power originates with the people and expressly rejects the doctrine of nonresistance to arbitrary power and oppression (Tenn. Const. art. I, §§ 1, 2, 26). Those principles coexist and should guide every legislator considering whether government has exceeded its lawful authority by enactment of the existing Tennessee statutes, regulations and local restrictions.
First Priority: Repeal Tennessee’s “Intent to Go Armed” Offense
Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-17-1307(a) makes carrying a firearm with the intent to go armed a criminal offense. Although subsequent legislation created numerous exceptions and defenses, including provisions allowing many adults to carry handguns without permits, the underlying offense remains. Tennessee has retained a statutory structure under which carrying a firearm is broadly defined as criminal conduct while protected activities (carrying in your home or with a permit) may depend on separately established defenses or exceptions.
The fact that the statutes provide for “defenses” or “exceptions” matters. Tennessee law treats statutory exceptions and defenses differently from the elements of a criminal offense. In particular, the State generally is not required to negate a statutory exception in the charging instrument, and a person relying on an exception must establish it at trial by a preponderance of the evidence. Ordinary defenses have slightly different procedural rules, including the State’s obligation to overcome at trial a defense that has been fairly raised by the proof (Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-11-201–203; 39-17-1307(g); 39-17-1308). A constitutional right should not depend on a statutory framework that begins by making its exercise a crime.
The General Assembly had repeated opportunities to address this problem. For example, in 2026. SB 2467/HB 2064 proposed repealing the general intent-to-go-armed offense, but the legislation did not become law. In August 2025, a three-judge Tennessee trial court also declared § 39-17-1307(a) (the “intent to go armed” statute) unconstitutional. The State appealed. As of November 11, 2026, the appeal remains pending (Hughes v. Lee, No. W2025-01327-COA-R3-CV).
The Legislature does not need to wait on a final appellate judgment to repeal a statute. It could have done it in special session in 2025 or it could have done in it regular session at any time before or after the lawsuit was filed (2023) or in 2026 which was after the trial court ruling. The Legislature should immediately eliminate § 39-17-1307(a) in 2027. If real constitutional carry means anything, it must begin by removing the general criminal prohibition against exercising the right in the first instance.
Second Priority: Repeal the Prohibitions on Carrying in Parks and Public Recreational Areas
Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-17-1311 imposes criminal consequences on possessing or carrying weapons (there is an Attorney General’s opinion expanding the actual statutory language) in public parks, playgrounds, civic centers, and other public recreational property, subject again to some statutory exceptions that, for example, do not include the “permitless carry” statutory defense. Permission to carry under one statute does not automatically eliminate a separate prohibition applicable to public recreational property.
Public parks, greenways, campgrounds, and similar facilities are places where ordinary citizens engage in lawful activities, often accompanied by their families. Government ownership of such property does not resolve whether a prohibition on exercising a constitutional right is lawful as Bruen demonstrates. The General Assembly must evaluate these restrictions under the controlling constitutional standards rather than assume that government ownership justifies disarming the public.
Significantly, the three-judge trial court in Hughes v. Lee also declared § 39-17-1311(a) unconstitutional, although that judgment remains stayed pending appeal. The General Assembly should repeal the restrictions in 2027, rather than continuing to defend a statute whose constitutionality has been seriously challenged.
Third Priority: Make the Right to Carry Apply Equally to Eligible Adults and All Commonly Possessed Firearms
Tennessee’s permitless-handgun-carry exception generally distinguishes adults who are twenty-one or older from adults ages eighteen through twenty, subject to military-related exceptions as well as a federal court settlement that applies only to the Department of Safety. Legislative reform should establish clear statutory rights for otherwise eligible adults ages eighteen through twenty and eliminate distinctions between citizens who possess the same constitutional rights (Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1307(g)).
The General Assembly must also address the distinction between handguns and long guns. Tennessee’s broad intent-to-go-armed offense applies to firearms generally, while the permit statute and the permitless-carry statute apply only to some (not all) handguns. Citizens should not face an unnecessarily restrictive or confusing statutory system simply because they choose to carry a lawfully possessed rifle or shotgun rather than a handgun. TFA has supported legislation allowing otherwise eligible persons to carry any firearms.
Fourth Priority: Remove Unjustified Gun-Free Zones and Require Government Accountability for Public Safety
Tennessee law imposes significant restrictions on firearms in schools, colleges, universities, government offices, judicial facilities, and other public locations. Some restrictions implicate areas traditionally discussed as sensitive places, while others sweep much more broadly. The Supreme Court has recognized that certain sensitive-place restrictions may be constitutionally permissible but specific SCOTUS merits rulings on which possible sensitive places satisfy the test in Bruen are almost non-existent. The existence of dicta in some court rulings does not excuse the Legislature from examining the text, history, scope, and practical operation of each Tennessee law (Bruen, 597 U.S. at 30–31; e.g, Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 39-17-1306, 39-17-1309, 39-17-1321, 39-17-1359).
The 2027 legislative agenda should include reforms allowing citizens to carry lawfully possessed firearms into the State Capitol, local-government offices, and expanding campus carry. These policies require specific legislative decisions, not generalized assertions that every government building, certain private properties (e.g., hospitals) or school property boundary automatically justifies a total prohibition.
Where government continues to prohibit lawful carry, it should be required to clearly establish in the public record the “Bruen basis” for the restriction and, where that is done, it should be required to provide secure, accessible firearm storage for visitors. Government cannot reasonably insist that citizens disarm before entering a public facility while refusing to provide a practical means of securing their property. Responsibility for the consequences of such policies must be part of the legislative discussion.
Fifth Priority: Reform Posted-Property Laws and Their Criminal Penalties
Tennessee law permits qualifying property owners and other entities to post property as gun free zones and it establishes criminal consequences for violations (e.g., Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1359). TFA recognizes the importance of private-property rights. However, respecting a property owner’s authority to exclude individuals possessing firearms does not require treating every lawful gun owner who enters posted premises as a criminal.
The Legislature should replace the existing criminal-penalty structure with a requirement that a person who is informed of the prohibition must leave the premises or lawfully secure the firearm before criminal enforcement occurs. Property owners would retain meaningful control over their premises, and ordinary criminal-trespass laws would remain available when a person refuses to leave.
TFA also supports legislation creating an appropriate civil remedy when commercial property owners prohibit lawful defensive carry, fail to provide reasonable security, and lawful invitees suffer injuries from criminal acts. Those who impose restrictions affecting personal security should not automatically escape every question of responsibility for the foreseeable consequences.
Sixth Priority: Protect Self-Defense Rights and Due Process
Tennessee citizens who lawfully defend themselves should not be forced unnecessarily through the expense, uncertainty, and hardship of a criminal trial when the evidence establishes that their actions were justified self-defense, defense of third-parties or even defense of real or personal property. TFA supports creating a pretrial justified-use-of-force hearing, as some other states have done, at which the State would bear a defined evidentiary burden and the court could dismiss charges when that burden is not met.
Related reforms should address the loss of firearm rights following misdemeanor and nonviolent felony convictions. TFA supports meaningful restoration after completion of sentence for persons who are not otherwise lawfully prohibited from possessing firearms. Legislators should also address confiscation, compelled surrender, and other forms of firearm dispossession imposed without a criminal conviction, with protections against arbitrary deprivation and adequate judicial procedures. Existing constitutional precedent recognizes that some temporary restrictions involving demonstrated threats may be permissible; any proposed reforms must account for those limits (United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024)). The legislative objective must be to prevent unnecessary, indefinite, or procedurally unfair loss of constitutional rights.
Seventh Priority: Restore and Protect the Citizen’s Ability to Challenge Unconstitutional Government Action
In 2026, Tennessee enacted Public Chapter 664 through HB 1971/SB 1958. That legislation repealed Tennessee Code Annotated § 1-3-121, which had expressly provided a cause of action for affected persons seeking declaratory or injunctive relief concerning whether certain governmental action, primarily statutes, were unconstitutional. The replacement statute provides a more limited express cause of action involving only claims against political subdivisions (i.e., local governments). The 2026 legislation eliminated the prior statute’s authorization for challenges to the constitutionality of state statutes.
Eliminating an express statutory remedy for challenges to state action was a serious and perhaps unconstitutional legislative choice. Constitutional rights have little practical value if government can make it unnecessarily difficult for citizens to obtain judicial review before suffering prosecution or other harm. The 2027 Legislature should restore clear statutory protections for pre-enforcement constitutional challenges, declaratory judgments, injunctions, and fee-shifting for successful challengers similar to what federal civil rights statutes permit (Tenn. Pub. Ch. 664 (2026); Tenn. Code Ann. § 29-14-102).
There is a fundamental difference between a constitutional government and a government that attempts to protect its own enactments from judicial scrutiny. The Legislature should be expected to defend its authority under the Constitution, not weaken the lawful mechanisms by which citizens can challenge its excesses.
Eighth Priority: Strengthen Firearms Preemption and Limit Unauthorized Government Regulation
Tennessee has a statute that broadly preempts local regulation of firearms and provides remedies for certain violations (Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1314). Yet the effectiveness of preemption depends on enforcement. TFA supports strengthening existing remedies and ensuring that local governments cannot impose unauthorized firearms restrictions through ordinances, facility policies, administrative practices, or other indirect methods.
Legislative reforms in 2027 should prohibit discrimination against lawful firearms-related events when public facilities are rented, licensed, or made available for public use. State agencies should not exercise independent authority to regulate the ownership, purchase, transfer, possession, carrying, or use of firearms without express legislative authorization. Public money and government personnel should not be used as instruments to evade constitutional limitations or campaign for restrictions on the rights of the people.
The Legislature should also reinforce restrictions on the use of emergency powers to interfere with lawful firearms activity. Tennessee already prohibits certain additional firearms restrictions during declared emergencies (Tenn. Code Ann. § 58-2-107(m)). The 2027 objective should be to close identifiable gaps, preserve those protections, and provide effective remedies when officials exceed their authority.
Ninth Priority: Eliminate Unnecessary Government Burdens on Firearms Transactions
Tennessee operates its own point-of-contact background-check system through the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation at a cost of $10 per transaction. The state has collected millions of dollars from citizens through this tax on constitutional rights. On the other hand, the FBI performs the same services at no cost to the dealers or the purchasers. TFA supports eliminating the state background-check system, its fee and reforming the administration of transactions that are delayed or cannot be conclusively resolved.
The TBI currently uses a “conditional proceed” classification when the agency cannot determine eligibility following a denial and appeal. In that situation, the dealer may have discretion to complete the transfer, but the classification does not require the dealer to do so and in fact some dealers refuse to do so. TFA supports legislation requiring timely decisions and ensuring that citizens do not remain indefinitely burdened by unresolved government records when no lawful basis for denial has been clearly established (Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1316).
Government should bear responsibility for maintaining accurate records and administering its own procedures. Lawful firearm ownership should not become dependent on administrative delays, inconsistent classifications, or fees that citizens must pay to exercise their rights.
Tenth Priority: Strengthen Tennessee’s Constitution and Reform Institutional Accountability
TFA supports restarting the constitutional amendment process to strengthen Article I, Section 26 of the Tennessee Constitution. The current provision protects keeping and bearing arms for the common defense but includes language authorizing legislative regulation of wearing arms to prevent crime which clause may violate federal law. TFA’s previously proposed and supported reforms that would clarify the individual right to keep and bear arms for personal defense and remove the regulatory clause, but the Legislature refused to move those constitutional amendments forward to a public vote.
A separate constitutional reform would provide for popular election of Tennessee’s Attorney General and Reporter, who is currently appointed by the Tennessee Supreme Court for an eight-year term (Tenn. Const. art. VI, § 5). The office’s responsibility for defending state statutes and providing legal positions on constitutional questions makes its accountability a legitimate public concern. Indeed, the current system requires the Attorney General to take a constitutional oath but then tolerates an Attorney General who defends unconstitutional statutes.
Both proposals would require the amendment process established by Article XI, Section 3, rather than ordinary legislation alone.
Accountability, Not Appeasement, Must Define the 2027 Legislative Session
These reforms will not be accomplished by treating elected officials as political celebrities, personal friends, or benefactors whose occasional favorable votes deserve permanent loyalty. Legislators are public servants. They seek office voluntarily, swear to support the Constitution, take a sworn oath to defend the constitutions and the rights that they protect, and accept responsibility for the laws they enact, preserve, or refuse to reform.
Tennessee’s gun owners must reject the familiar practice of accepting broad campaign assurances as substitutes for tangible legislative results. A legislator who claims to support constitutional carry should be asked whether that legislator will sponsor or vote for repeal of § 39-17-1307(a). Each candidate should be expected to answer. A legislator who claims to support the right to self-defense should be asked which gun-free-zone restrictions that legislator intends to remove. Legislative leaders must be held responsible not only for their personal votes but also for committee assignments, scheduling decisions, procedural obstacles, and whether meaningful reform bills are permitted to reach the floor.
An issue does not disappear merely because a committee chairman refuses to schedule a vote or continues a bill for years down the road. When leadership prevents legislation from advancing, that decision must become part of the public record of accountability. Excuses involving political timing, party unity, leadership preferences, or the supposed need to wait another year should be examined critically. The Constitution does not become less important because enforcing it would inconvenience a party caucus or even if it might cost the party “seats” in the next election.
The same standards apply to Governor-elect Blackburn. She should be asked to publicly identify the reforms she will include in her 2027 legislative agenda, whether she will advocate for their passage, whether she will sign them, and whether her administration will seek lawful means to end the State’s defense of challenged restrictions that she concludes are unconstitutional. These are appropriate questions for the incoming governor, regardless of party affiliation or past endorsements.
The Call to Action: Demand Commitments, Document Conduct, and Enforce Accountability
Beginning now, every Tennessee gun owner who believes constitutional rights are worth defending should contact their state representative and state senator. Do not merely ask whether they support the Second Amendment – the response will likely be yes but there is no accountability for such an ambiguous reply. Ask which of these specific reforms they will sponsor, co-sponsor, vote for, and publicly advocate in 2027. Request a written response. When bills are introduced, obtain their numbers, examine their actual language, and follow their progress through committees and floor votes. Maintain contact with your individual legislators, even if they are not on those committees, because they can and should co-sponsor bills and demand of their peers that the bills advance to the floor of each house.
Contact the governor-elect’s office and demand equally specific commitments. Ask whether her administration intends to drop the State’s appeal in Hughes v. Lee, to repeal the intent-to-go-armed offense, to remove the park restrictions, to restore meaningful access to constitutional judicial review, and to pursue broader firearm-law reform. A response consisting only of familiar phrases about loving freedom or respecting the Second Amendment is not an answer to those questions – its a hide and seek political game to conceal the truth.
Organize with other concerned citizens. Attend or even organize legislative meetings and public forums. Follow committee calendars. Publicize documented votes, amendments, postponements, and procedural decisions. Recognize officials who produce meaningful results, but expose the record of those who refuse to act or obstruct reform. When an elected official repeatedly fails to meet constitutional obligations, citizens should be prepared to seek different representation through lawful political and electoral processes.
This is not a request for political favors. It is an expectation that government officials honor the limits placed upon their authority.
Have the Courage of the Founding Generation
The generation that established the American republic understood that liberty is not preserved by complacency or submission to authority. Its members confronted concentrated government power, challenged abuses of authority, and accepted personal risks rather than surrender the principles they believed essential to self-government. Their example calls for courage, discipline, sacrifice, and determination. There was no passive reliance on political leaders – particularly those who have an opportunities to effect change but failed or, worse, refused.
Tennessee’s own Constitution reflects that conviction. Article I, Section 1 declares that governmental power originates with the people. Article I, Section 2 expressly rejects nonresistance to arbitrary power and oppression as “absurd, slavish, and destructive” (Tenn. Const. art. I, §§ 1–2). Those words must mean more than historical decoration. They impose a responsibility upon citizens to defend constitutional government through persistent, organized, and lawful action.
Today’s citizens have powerful constitutional tools available to them: freedom of speech, freedom of association, the right to petition government, access to courts, and the ballot. Exercising those tools requires the same essential qualities that distinguished the founding generation: courage in confronting authority, commitment to principle, and determination to continue when the powerful refuse to listen.
For 2027, Tennessee’s Second Amendment supporters should adopt a clear standard: No more empty promises. No more excuses. No more accepting party labels in place of constitutional performance.
The Tennessee Firearms Association intends to evaluate the governor and the General Assembly by their actual conduct on these issues. We encourage every citizen who values the Second Amendment to do the same.
The Constitution is not a favor that politicians grant. It is the controlling limit on their power. It is time to demand that Tennessee’s laws reflect that reality.
For legislator contact information, visit the Tennessee General Assembly’s Find My Legislator resource. Review TFA’s detailed candidate survey and legislative resources at TennesseeFirearms.com.
Sorry, comments are closed for this post.