Marsha Blackburn won the governor’s office on November 3, 2026 – but just barely. But, the Tennessee Code did not change. The Republican leadership that has controlled the Tennessee Legislative over the last sixteen years while major firearms restrictions survived remains in power. Blackburn sought that leadership’s support, accepted their endorsements, and she steadfastly refused to answer specific questions about removing the known and obvious restrictions in Tennessee which infringe rights protected by the Second Amendment. After sixteen years of Republican governors and total Republican legislative control, gun owners have every reason to judge the next administration by that record rather than another campaign slogan.
Blackburn received approximately 45.5 percent of the vote in the general election. She just barely defeated Democrat Jerri Green since only about 54,000 votes provided her margin. However, more than half of Tennessee voters in the general election (and for that matter in the Republican primary) selected someone other than Blackburn. The result cannot reasonably be advertised by Blackburn, her supporters or the Republican party as a popular mandate for maintaining existing firearms laws. Nor can a Republican victory be counted as a Second Amendment victory when not one of the laws at issue has been repealed and there were no promises from this candidate to do so.
Tennessee Firearms Association has no duty to defend a political party’s reputation. Its role is to defend constitutional rights. George Washington warned in his Farewell Address against the “baneful effects of the spirit of party.” Tennessee’s own experience demonstrates the danger: citizens are urged to elect Republicans to protect the Constitution, then instructed to be patient while those same Republican elected officials preserve laws and advance new ones that TFA and other truly Second Amendment advocates have repeatedly challenged.
Start with the law. Tennessee Code Annotated section 39-17-1307(a) still criminalizes carrying a firearm with the intent to go armed. The Republican Legislature, while rejected real constitutional carry, created an affirmative defense for a handgun under subsection 39-17-1307(g) and several other separate statutory defenses, such as having a handgun permit, under section 39-17-1308. Those provisions have distinct legal effects, but none repeals the general criminal offense which makes it a crime to be armed with a firearm even in your own home or own your owner property. Further, section 39-17-1311 restricts, according to the attorney general, all firearms in parks, greenways, campgrounds and recreational places. Calling an exception-based system “constitutional carry” does not make the underlying criminal prohibition disappear – it is merely a lie.
Governors Bill Haslam and Bill Lee had sixteen years to press for repeal while their party dominated the Legislature. Indeed, they each assured voters that they supported it. Yet, they did not deliver it. Political leaders cannot plausibly blame an opposing-party majority, an unavailable committee vote, or a lack of time. The underlying statute survived repeated Republican legislative sessions because the majority of Republican legislators and two Republican governors opposed it. At some point continued failure ceases to be a campaign problem and becomes the governing record on which the public must judge the people and the party responsible.
In 2021, Senate Republican leader Jack Johnson and House Republican leader William Lamberth sponsored the measure that was falsely marketed as Bill Lee’s constitutional carry. Their law added a limited affirmative defense which the individual is required to raise if prosecuted instead of repealing section 39-17-1307(a)’s “intent to go armed” criminal offense. That was not the clean repeal that TFA and Second Amendment supporters sought or that they were promised. Gun owners were told a historic victory with the legislative package from Lee, Johnson and Lamberth had occurred while the very statute at the center of the dispute remained on the books (2021 legislative history).
In 2026, the Legislature again had repeal legislation before it. HB 2064 advanced from a House subcommittee, where Lamberth voted to move it forward although he likely knew it was otherwise dead on arrival in the Senate. However, that bill stalled in the Judiciary Committee and ended with “No Action Taken.” Its Senate companion was deferred to 2027. This is the Republican governing majority’s actual record: repeal was proposed, leaders had the means to advance it, and no repeal became law. A press release, a sponsorship, or a preliminary committee vote is not a restored right (2026 repeal bill history).
What does institutional power mean? A Speaker appoints and influences committees and calendars; majority leaders influence which proposals advance and which disappear. These are not passive spectators watching an inexplicable legislative accident. The failure to enact clean repeal occurred inside a government their party totally controlled. If a new governor intends to break that pattern, the evidence would be a public demand for repeal and an immediate and clearly articulated plan to obtain recorded votes. Blackburn supplied neither during the campaign.
Blackburn did not build her campaign by challenging that legislative leadership – just the opposite. Johnson and Lamberth publicly supported her early, and other senior Republican figures joined the effort. Those were not obscure backbenchers; they are central actors in the Legislature’s failed firearms-policy record. It would be extraordinary to assume, without one specific promise, that an incoming governor elected with their help intends to force them into a public confrontation over bills that they have repeatedly failed to enact.
Blackburn had the opportunity to dispel that concern in her campaign – repeatedly. TFA sent her a 27-question survey addressing the intent-to-go-armed offense, real constitutional carry, gun-free zones, and litigation over Tennessee firearms laws. John Rose and Monty Fritts both returned it. She did not. TFA invited candidates to recorded interviews with questions provided in advance. John Rose, Monty Fritts and David Hatley participated; Blackburn did not. Later invitations, including the general-election interview process, produced no specific answers from her. She was not deprived of a platform. She declined repeated opportunities to make commitments (TFA invitation record).
Her campaign’s published Second Amendment statement did not answer the questions either. It offered familiar yet entirely empty declarations of support for gun ownership and constitutional rights, but no promise to repeal section 39-17-1307(a), remove the parks restriction, identify other gun-free zones for repeal, or seek an end to the State’s defense of those laws. General assurances are politically convenient precisely because they cannot be measured against a specific bill or deadline (campaign position).
This omission matters more than national ratings and isolated congressional votes. Federal firearms measures cannot repeal Tennessee’s criminal statutes. The test for a Tennessee governor is whether she will spend political capital against Tennessee’s existing laws and the Republican leaders who control their fate. Blackburn offered no detailed plan to do so during a campaign in which she otherwise demonstrated considerable organizational strength. And, her cozy relationship and reliance on the very legislative leaders who have failed to repeal these laws itself speaks volumes of her likely course as governor.
That political strength has a financial history. Reporting on campaign filings traced more than $800,000 in Marsha PAC contributions to Tennessee Republican organizations and candidates from 2019 through 2025, as well as substantial spending supporting her gubernatorial effort. Reporting has also raised questions about consultant Ward Baker’s potential influence and private business relationships. Campaign contributions and reported allegations do not, standing alone, prove purchased official action. They do establish a well-financed political network whose influence deserves disclosure and scrutiny, particularly when specific policy answers were withheld (campaign finance reporting).
The stakes are immediate in Hughes v. Lee (which may soon become Hughes v. Blackburn). A three-judge trial court ruled in August 2025 that the challenged intent to go armed and and parks statutes were unconstitutional. The State appealed, and the Court of Appeals stayed that judgment. Oral argument occurred June 23, 2026; no appellate decision was listed as of November 5. Blackburn did not tell TFA that she agreed with the challenge, supported repeal, or would seek a lawful change in the State’s litigation position. While it could be said that the independently selected Attorney General cannot simply be ordered by a governor to dismiss an appeal, but a governor can publicly reject a statute, demand as a party that the appeal be dropped and even can insist on legislative repeal (Hughes appellate docket).
Meanwhile, the 2026 Legislature found time to enact laws affecting suits against the State. Public Chapter 664 removed one statutory cause of action for challenging state governmental conduct. Public Chapter 613 expanded certain interlocutory appeals by the State. Neither law eliminates all constitutional challenges. But both make clear that the Legislature could act decisively on litigation procedure while clean firearms repeal went nowhere.
TFA’s assessment is unavoidable: nothing in Blackburn’s specific Tennessee campaign commitments establishes an intended break from the policy of the Republican officials who supported her. Citizens should not be asked to invent a repeal program the governor-elect refused to announce. Continuity is the documented baseline; any departure must be demonstrated through legislation, public commitments, and official action. Litigation remains necessary to plan for if the Legislature again refuses to act.
What must happen in 2027
- Demand a written, public position from Governor-elect Blackburn on repeal of section 39-17-1307(a), the parks restriction, and identified gun-free zones. Require proposed bill language, not another declaration that she “supports the Second Amendment.”
- Demand her answer on Hughes v. Lee. Ask whether she supports the State’s continued defense of these provisions and whether she will advocate repeal regardless of the appeal’s outcome.
- Demand accountability from Sexton, Johnson, Lamberth, and the relevant committee chairs. Ask for clean repeal legislation, actual hearings, and recorded votes; do not mistake a deferred bill for legislative progress.
- Examine political money and official access. Seek disclosure of consultant relationships and documented financial connections, while separating verified transactions from accusations that have not been proved.
- Support careful constitutional litigation where legislative repeal fails. Appropriate federal cases require standing, jurisdiction, proper defendants, and sound facts; citizens should consult counsel rather than expose themselves to prosecution to create a test case.
- Judge every official by enacted law and official action, regardless of party. Track the bills, committee calendars, votes, court orders, and the governor’s decisions, and publish the record accurately.
The election gave Blackburn an office despite most voters preferring other candidates.
But, the election did not give gun owners constitutional carry, repeal a single challenged restriction, or produce a commitment to confront Tennessee’s Republican leadership over either. The government can finance the defense of those laws with tax dollars; citizens must raise private funds to challenge them. Until the statutes change, the burden remains on the people whose rights are at stake, not on the politicians whose campaign succeeded.
Sorry, comments are closed for this post.