In early January 2026, Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti openly addressed the Hughes v. Lee unanimous trial court ruling and his appeal of that ruling with voters in Brentwood, Tennessee. Kelly Jackson, of Truthwire News, attended the meeting and has written about Skrmetti’s comments and his attempts to justify retaining statutes in Tennessee which he concedes violate the Second Amendment.
As reported by Jackson, who reportedly has a recording of the meeting, Skrmetti openly conceded that existing Tennessee statutes (not just the “intent to go armed” and “parks” statutes) are likely unconstitutional. Yet, it appears, Skrmetti asserts that it was wrong for the trial court to declare the statutes to be in violation because, according to Skrmetti’s claims, even the unconstitutional statutes might in some circumstances be constitutional.
As reported by Jackson,
Skrmetti did not dispute that Tennessee’s gun laws face constitutional difficulties after Bruen. He stated multiple times that there are “constitutional problems” with the state’s current statutory framework and conceded that certain applications—such as carrying a long gun for self-defense in rural circumstances—would likely be difficult for the state to defend if challenged as applied.
Apparently, Skrmetti would assert that any of Tennessee’s gun control statutes which clearly violate the Second Amendment in the minds of those who understand the Second Amendment should survive a constitutional court challenge if the statute could be constitutionally applied in at least one circumstance. Take for example the “intent to go armed” statute. Skrmetti appears to concede this is one that has serious constitutional problems. But, can it be applied to someone for example who is a “prohibited person” like a convicted violent felon (whose rights have not been pardoned or restored)? Does such a narrow application justify defending a statute that on its face violates the rights of over 7 million Tennesseans and even more if you include visitors to the state?
Indeed, has Skrmetti violated that very position with how his office settled the constitutional challenge in Beeler when a three individuals aged 18-20 sued the state for violating their Second Amendment rights? Skrmetti elected not to defend that statute and instead settled that federal case by admitting that the 21 year old and up restriction on issuing handgun permits violated the Second Amendment, the Fourteenth Amendment and the Federal Civil Rights Act. But, wouldn’t it be true there that the 18-20 year old prohibition in Tennessee’s law could be applied to deny permits to individuals in that age bracket who had violent felony convictions? Curiously, the decision to fight in Hughes v. Lee to retain admittedly unconstitutional statutes for enforcement may be more political than just a question of abiding by the constitutions (as stated in his oath of office) and protecting the rights of citizens.
The political motivation seems clear. Jackson’s report indicates that Skrmetti chose to defend the statutes, in part because, as he has argued in his appellate brief, the issue should be resolved by the Legislature and not the courts. But, is that truly a valid argument to be made when the statutes are admittedly unconstitutional and the Legislature has ignored bills filed by both Democrats and Republicans to repeal them for decades?
