Tennessee Court Strikes Down Two Gun Control Laws

A Tennessee court unanimously struck down gun-control laws last week.

The Gibson County Chancery Court overturned two state laws that prevented Tennesseans from carrying firearms in parks and having the “intent to go armed.” This chancery court was made up of three judges. Tennessee law requires three judges to decide a case when someone challenges the constitutionality of a law.

The carrying firearms in parks law referred to Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1311(a). This law made it a criminal offense for anyone to “carry or possess” a firearm in any public park or playground for “recreational purposes.”

For the “intent to go armed law,” this referred to Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1307(a)(1), which said a “person commits an offense who carries, with the intent to go armed, a firearm or a club.”

In the court’s decision regarding both these laws, it stated that the statutes violated America’s Second Amendment and Article I, Section 26 of the Tennessee Constitution, which affirms Tennesseans’ right to bear arms.

The plaintiffs in the case were attorney Stephen Hughes, Gun Owners of America and the Gun Owners Foundation. Defendants in the case were Governor Bill Lee, Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, and other state officials.

Pertaining to carrying firearms in parks law, the defendants attempted to argue this law fell under the “sensitive places doctrine.” This doctrine states government can constitutionally prohibit the possession of firearms, thus lawfully requiring citizens to surrender the ‘central component’ of their Second Amendment rights by foregoing the right to keep and bear arms in self-defense, when in such locations.”

They said parks should be treated as sensitive places due to children being present there and the history of restricting firearms in parks. Defendants referenced multiple state laws dating back to the 19th century.

The plaintiffs in the case stated this doctrine did not apply to parks because they are not “sensitive places.” Historically, the plaintiffs said the park gun ban came after the Civil War, which meant this law did not reflect the true “historic tradition” of the Second Amendment.

In the decision, the court stated this park ban did not apply to the “sensitive places doctrine” because it pertains to government functions, such as legislative assemblies, courthouses, and polling places. Furthermore, the court said the parks and playgrounds are recreational areas and not essential government buildings.

Regarding the historical argument, the judges stated the laws passed by Tennessee, dating back to the 19th century, were too recent and did not accurately reflect the historical context of the Second Amendment’s founding.

In terms of the “intent to go armed law,” the defendants relied on the historical tradition argument. They stated this law was in line with early colonial and American statutes, which prevented people from carrying weapons to terrorize others.

Plaintiffs in the case argued that this law was too broad because it prevented people from carrying firearms for the purpose of self-defense. They referenced previous state court rulings that defined “going armed” with a broad scope.

When the judges ruled on this law, they cited the Supreme Court’s 2022 New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen decision. The Supreme Court ruled in this case that “intent to go armed” laws apply to carrying weapons in a threatening manner.

The judges noted Tennessee’s law also applies to people trying to defend themselves, which they found went too far in restricting people’s Second Amendment rights.

– – –

Zachery Schmidt is the digital editor of The Star News Network. Email tips to Zachery at [email protected].
Photo “Conceal Carry” by Clinger Holsters. CC BY-ND 2.0.

Sign up here to receive morning updates, plus breaking news, and special offers

CONFIRM

You have Successfully Subscribed!