Tennesseans are frequently told that Tennessee is a “constitutional carry” state. That description is incomplete. Well, its actually false.
Tennessee does permit many qualifying adults to carry handguns without first obtaining a handgun carry permit, but the Tennessee Criminal Code still contains a much older and much broader starting point: Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-17-1307(a) declares that a person commits a criminal offense by carrying a firearm “with the intent to go armed.” The General Assembly’s own 2026 description of existing law confirms that this offense remains part of Tennessee law and carries misdemeanor penalties.
The importance of that statutory structure should not be overlooked. Section 39-17-1307(a) is not written merely as a prohibition against carrying a firearm in a courthouse, school, government building, or other specially regulated location. The operative language itself does not contain a geographic limitation restricting the offense to public places. Instead, Tennessee law begins with a general criminal prohibition and then relies upon exceptions and defenses elsewhere in the Code to protect conduct that most Tennesseans would ordinarily regard as lawful.
Your Home Is Addressed as a Statutory Defense
Tennessee Code Annotated § 39-17-1308 demonstrates the unusual nature of this structure. That provision describes circumstances that constitute a “defense” to the application of § 39-17-1307. Among those circumstances are possession or carrying at a person’s place of residence, place of business, or premises. The Tennessee Court of Appeals quoted this statutory structure directly in Embody v. Cooper, including the provisions for a person’s residence, business, and premises.
That means the statutory framework does not simply say, at the outset, that carrying a firearm in your own home is outside the offense. Instead, the offense is stated broadly and the protection for the home appears separately as a defense. The same statutory section contains additional defenses for other categories of possession and carrying. Whatever label one gives Tennessee’s firearm laws as a matter of political shorthand, that is the structure the General Assembly chose to place and to leave in the criminal code.
There is an important legal qualification. Calling the residence provision a “defense” does not mean that a defendant must ultimately prove that defense by a preponderance of the evidence. Tennessee criminal law distinguishes a statutory “defense” from a statutory “exception.” A defense must first be fairly raised by the proof; once it is fairly raised, the State bears the burden associated with disproving it beyond a reasonable doubt. Tennessee appellate decisions describe the “fairly raised” requirement in applying Tennessee’s defense provisions.
The 2021 Permitless-Carry Law Did Not Repeal the Underlying Offense
When Tennessee enacted permitless handgun carry in 2021, the General Assembly could have repealed § 39-17-1307(a) and replaced it with a statute beginning from the premise that lawful firearm carry is not a criminal offense. It did not do that. The enacted framework instead added subsection (g), which expressly states that qualifying handgun carry is an “exception to the application of subsection (a).” The legislative amendment creating that provision used those precise words.
That distinction is important because an “exception” has different procedural consequences from a “defense” under Tennessee criminal law. A person can still be criminally charged or arrested for carrying with the intent to go armed. Tennessee’s statutory burden provisions place the burden at trial concerning an exception on the person relying upon it, while an ordinary defense operates differently once fairly raised.
The practical result is that Tennessee unquestionably has a statute that indicates permitless handgun carry is available for people who satisfy subsection (g), it is still a crime and its the individual’s burden to prove that their actions meet all the statutory elements of the exception. The legislature accomplished that result without repealing the underlying “intent to go armed” offense. Tennessee therefore has what politicians commonly call “constitutional carry,” while retaining a statutory framework in which the general criminal prohibition remains the starting point and lawful handgun carry is protected through an exception.
That Is Why Hughes v. Lee Matters
The constitutional consequences of this framework are now before Tennessee’s appellate courts in Stephen L. Hughes, et al. v. Bill Lee, et al. The litigation challenges the constitutionality of the “intent to go armed” statute under the Second Amendment following the United States Supreme Court’s modern Second Amendment decisions. The trial court entered judgment against the State, and the State appealed. However, the State appealed that ruling with the encouragement of several legislators including, for example, Representative Chris Todd who called for the appeal on his social media post.
The Court of Appeals heard oral argument on June 23, 2026. As of August 12, 2026, the official appellate docket lists the argument but contains no decision date or disposition. The constitutional question therefore remains in active appellate litigation, and the trial court judgment should not be described as an unstayed final appellate determination.
Republicans Have Controlled Tennessee Government for More Than Fifteen Years
The political accountability question is separate from the constitutional question, but it is difficult to avoid. Republican Bill Haslam became governor in January 2011, and Republican Bill Lee succeeded him in January 2019. During this same general period, Republicans have held dominant control of the Tennessee General Assembly.
Many Republican candidates and legislators have presented themselves to voters as strong defenders of the Second Amendment. The legislative record also shows that Republican legislators have repeatedly sponsored bills that would have expanded lawful firearm carry, reduced permit requirements, or altered the “intent to go armed” framework. The important question is therefore not whether every Republican legislator has opposed reform. Plainly, many have supported it. The more consequential institutional question is why a party possessing overwhelming legislative power for this length of time has never completed the repeal of § 39-17-1307(a).
That distinction matters because criticism should be directed at the actual legislative record rather than converted into an unsupported claim that every Republican officeholder has taken the same position. Some Republican legislators have filed repeal bills, voted for reform, and attempted to move those bills through the legislature. Nevertheless, after more than fifteen years of Republican control, the underlying “intent to go armed” offense remains in the Code.
The Legislature Has Had Repeated Opportunities to Change the Law
The General Assembly’s records show that this is not an issue that appeared for the first time after Hughes. Bills proposing substantial changes to Tennessee’s carry laws have appeared repeatedly over multiple legislative sessions. For example, legislation introduced in earlier sessions proposed removing or substantially narrowing the criminal restrictions on firearm carry, including proposals sponsored by legislators such as Mae Beavers, Mark Green, Micah Van Huss, and others. The existence of these bills shows that legislators have long been aware of the statutory structure and have had repeated opportunities to change it.
Not every one of those measures followed the same path, so the history should not be oversimplified. Some proposals died in committee or subcommittee without receiving final floor consideration. At least one major reform proposal advanced much farther. The significant point is that proposals to change the statutory framework have repeatedly been introduced, yet the legislature never completed the straightforward task of deleting the general “intent to go armed” offense.
The 2026 Legislature Had Another Direct Opportunity
The issue became even more difficult to ignore during the 2026 legislative session. HB 2064, sponsored by Representative Todd, and SB 2467, sponsored by Senator Paul Bailey, expressly proposed to repeal “the criminal offenses of unlawfully carrying a firearm or club with the intent to go armed.” This was not an indirect permit bill or a minor adjustment to an exception. The legislation directly addressed the offense at the center of the controversy.
The House Criminal Justice Subcommittee recommended HB 2064 for passage by a vote of 7-2 on March 11, 2026. The bill then went to the House Judiciary Committee, where action was deferred repeatedly. The final recorded House action on April 14, 2026, was “No Action Taken.” It never received a House floor vote.
The Senate companion had a similar result. SB 2467 was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, and on March 23, 2026, the committee chairman, Todd Gardenhire, unilaterally deferred action on the bill until 2027. The Senate therefore did not conduct a final floor vote on the proposed repeal during the 2026 session.
This occurred after the constitutional challenge in Hughes had already produced a trial-court ruling serious enough to generate an appeal by the State, and while Republican officeholders continued to possess the political power necessary to enact legislation. Whatever one’s view of the constitutional merits, the legislature had before it a bill that would directly repeal the disputed offense and did not enact it.
“Constitutional Carry” and the Statutory Reality Are Not the Same Thing
The phrase “constitutional carry” is a term that means the conduct is simply not a crime – period. That is not how Tennessee governors and most Republican legislators have used the phrase. The misleading substitute the phrase for a statutory scheme that provides for carrying a firearm (still a crime) but without having to have a handgun permit. Tennessee does have a permitless carry exception that can be raised by the individual who has been charged with a crime Clearly, the phrase “constitutional carry” does not accurately communicate the entire statutory structure in Tennessee.
The statutory reality begins with § 39-17-1307(a), an offense based upon carrying a firearm with the intent to go armed. It then moves to statutory defenses in § 39-17-1308 and an exception for qualifying handgun carry in § 39-17-1307(g). That is materially different from a code that simply begins with the proposition that a person who may lawfully possess a firearm may lawfully carry it unless some separate, specifically identified prohibition applies.
That difference is not merely a matter of semantics. Criminal statutes determine what the State may charge, what facts matter in a prosecution, how burdens are allocated, and what a citizen must establish or raise when relying upon an exception or defense. Those questions are precisely why the statutory terminology—offense, exception, and defense—should be taken seriously rather than collapsed into a campaign slogan.The Legislative Record Deserves Scrutiny
Supporters of Tennessee’s current approach point to the permitless handgun-carry exception. They argue that exceptions and defenses are a conventional way of structuring criminal statutes and that the existence of § 39-17-1307(a) does not mean ordinary qualifying handgun carriers are routinely treated as criminals. But that is not how the exercise of constitutionally protected rights can be lawfully regulated.
A constitutional right should not be structured around a general criminal prohibition followed by exceptions and defenses, particularly where the legislature has had repeated opportunities to repeal the underlying offense. That criticism has greater force because the General Assembly has repeatedly has had repeal bills before it and did not enact them.
The legitimate accountability question is therefore straightforward: after more than fifteen years of Republican control, after repeated firearm-carry reform proposals, and after constitutional litigation challenging the statute, why does § 39-17-1307(a) remain part of Tennessee law?
What Interested Tennesseans Can Do
Tennesseans who care about this issue can begin by reading the statutes and legislative history rather than relying exclusively on campaign descriptions such as “constitutional carry.” They can follow committee calendars and votes, ask their own representatives and senators whether they support repeal of the “intent to go armed” offense, and request a clear explanation when legislators decline to advance or vote on the proposal. Those forms of direct constituent participation allow voters to evaluate officeholders on documented legislative conduct rather than campaign language.
Readers who already support the Tennessee Firearms Association’s policy objectives can also obtain information about TFA membership and its legislative activities. TFA is a Tennessee nonprofit organization focused on the right to keep and bear arms, and its membership program includes legislative updates and participation in the organization’s activities.
The Tennessee Firearms Association Legislative Action Committee, or TFALAC, is also holding its 2026 Annual Flagship Event on Saturday, September 12, 2026, at the Farm Bureau Expo Center in Lebanon, Tennessee. Lara Logan is the keynote speaker and Dr. Ken Berry as master of ceremonies. Additional details and ticket information are available on the 2026 TFALAC Annual Event page.
The most useful public debate begins with the actual text of the law and the actual legislative record. Citizens can then ask elected officials specific questions: Do you support retaining § 39-17-1307(a)? Do you support repealing it? If you say Tennessee should have constitutional carry, should lawful carry remain an exception to a criminal offense, or should the Code itself begin from a presumption of the exercise of a constitutionally protected right cannot operate under a presumption of criminal oppression.
The Bottom Line
Section 39-17-1307(a) continues to state a criminal offense for carrying a firearm with the intent to go armed; § 39-17-1308 provides defenses to that offense; and § 39-17-1307(g) provides an exception for qualifying handgun carry. The legislature could have repealed the underlying offense decades ago but it has refused.
Meanwhile, Hughes v. Lee remains pending before the Tennessee Court of Appeals following oral argument on June 23, 2026. Tennessee voters therefore have both a constitutional case and a legislative record to examine when deciding whether the phrase “constitutional carry” accurately describes the law they actually have.
The relevant question is not what Tennessee politicians call the law. The relevant question is what the Tennessee Code actually says—and why the General Assembly has chosen to leave it that way.
