On February 16, 2023, a lawsuit was filed by Stephen L. Hughes, Duncan O’Mara, Elaine Kehel, Gun Owners of America, Inc., and Gun Owners Foundation against Bill Lee, in his official capacity as the governor of the state of Tennessee, and Jonathan Skrmetti, in his official capacity as the state’s Attorney General. See, Stephen L. Hughes, et al., v. Bill Lee, Chancery Court for the 28th Judicial District, Gibson County, No: 24475.
In the lawsuit, the plaintiffs seek a determination by a state court that Tennessee’s “parks statute” (Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-17-1311) and Tennessee’s state-wide “gun free zone statute” (Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-17-1307) are unconstitutional under the Tennessee Constitution. The lawsuit is also based on similar lawsuits that have been filed in other state and federal courts following the United States Supreme Court’s June 2022 ruling in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen. Thus, this lawsuit directly presents perhaps the first major challenge to Tennessee’s unconstitutional statutory schemes following the Bruen decision.
The Tennessee “parks” statute (Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1311) makes it a crime to carry a firearm, any firearm, in a public recreational area including public parks, public greenways, campgrounds, etc. That criminal statutory scheme does provide that a citizen, who has a handgun permit, has an affirmative defense to the criminal charge if they are carrying a handgun in the statutory “gun free” zone but the burden in on the citizen to prove that they meet all the elements of the affirmative defense. Thus, a permit holder who is carrying a handgun in a public park, even concealed, is subject to being stopped, detained, questioned and even charged or arrested by law enforcement – any the citizen has the statutory “right” to demonstrate to a jury that the facts supporting the affirmative defense exist.
The second challenged statute is Tennessee’s state-wide “gun free zone statute” (Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-17-1307) which makes it a criminal offense for anyone to carry any firearm anywhere in the state with the “intent to go armed.” That statute applies even in an individual’s own home or while on their own property. Once again, the statutory scheme provides the individual with an affirmative defense (See Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-17-1308) but that does not protect the person from being stopped, detained, questioned, charged or even arrested by law enforcement.
The Plaintiffs filed their motion for summary judgment in which they asked the Court to rule that the challenged state statutes were unconstitutional. (See below)
On December 16, 2024, Governor Lee and Attorney General Skrmetti, who were each represented by the State Attorney General’s subordinates, filed a response and cross-motion for summary judgment. Lee and Skrmetti argue that the challenged statutes are constitutional. (see below) In their response, they assert:
Response at p. 3 [footnote omitted]
Tennessee is one of the most gun-friendly States in the history of the Nation, especially when it comes to allowing guns in public parks. Charles Rep. ¶ 32 (Exhibit 1); Young Rep. ¶ 61 (Exhibit 2). Although the law generally prohibits carrying firearms with the intent to go armed, there are broad statutory carveouts that expressly allow the carrying of firearms in a plethora of circumstances. For example, Tennesseans may freely carry handguns, openly or concealed, without a permit throughout the State. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1307(g). Although Tennessee requires a handgun carry permit in certain sensitive places, such as public parks, id. § -1311(a), the State’s “shall issue” licensing regime makes obtaining that permit easy. Id. §§ -1351(b), -1366(a). If that was not enough, there are dozens of statutory exceptions and defenses against criminal prosecution under the challenged statutes. See, e.g., id. §§ -1307(e), (g), -1308, -1311(b).
In general, these “carveouts” are statutory defenses that the citizen bears the burden to prove and which expose the citizens to being stopped, detained, questioned, and even prosecuted for carrying firearms not only in public parks but also in their own homes and on their own property. Apparently, these “carveouts” are what the Republican Governor and Attorney General believe do not constitute infringements on constitutionally protected rights.