On August 22, 2025, a three-judge panel of the Gibson County Chancery Court in Tennessee struck down two Tennessee statutes as unconstitutional under both the Second Amendment and the Tennessee state Constitution. The two statutes were Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1307 and Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1311.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1307

A person commits an offense who carries, with the intent to go armed, a firearm or a club.

Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1311

It is an offense for any person to possess or carry, whether openly or concealed, with the intent to go armed, any weapon prohibited by § 39-17-1302(a), not used solely for instructional, display or sanctioned ceremonial purposes, in or on the grounds of any public park, playground, civic center or other building facility, area or property owned, used or operated by any municipal, county or state government, or instrumentality thereof, for recreational purposes.

The three-judge panel summed up the issues put forward by the plaintiffs accordingly.  From the order of the court:

In order to avoid risks of being stopped, detained, issued a citation, and/or arrested, the Individual Plaintiffs must either 1) not take any longarms to the areas enumerated in Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1311(a); 2) not take a handgun to the areas enumerated in Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1311(a); or 3) if he does take a handgun, to make sure he has his permit and that this handgun is generally not visible to third parties in order to minimize the risk of observation or detection by third parties.3

Tennessee requires a three-judge panel for cases challenging the constitutionality of a state statute in the Chancery Courts. The three-judge panel first tackled the general statute forbidding the carry of a firearm or club with the intent to go armed. From the order of the court:

Accordingly, this Court holds that the Going Armed Statute violates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and therefore also violates Article I, Section 26 of the Tennessee Constitution. With respect to the Going Armed Statute, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED, and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby DENIED.

Then the panel considered the ban on carrying or possessing weapons in parks, playgrounds, civic centers, and any property owned by municipal, county, or state government. They found the “Parks Statute” to violate the Tennessee Constitution and the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution as well. From the order of the court:

Accordingly, we conclude the Parks Statute violates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and therefore also violates Article I, Section 26 of the Tennessee Constitution. Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED with respect to the Parks Statute, and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is consequently DENIED.

Tennessee House of Representatives member Chris Todd has asked AG Skrmett to appeal the decision in order to obtain a stronger precedent. From X.com:

I’m respectfully urging @AGTennessee Skrmetti to appeal the recent Chancery Court ruling striking down portions of Tennessee’s firearm laws. Some may assume that asking for an appeal means opposing the ruling — but in this case, it’s the opposite. The Chancellors’ opinion was one of the most thorough, well-reasoned, and well-written decisions we’ve seen. The judges did an outstanding job laying out the constitutional issues with clarity and precision.

That is exactly why I believe an appellate court will affirm this decision, and by doing so, make it even stronger as binding precedent. Such an outcome would provide greater protection for Tennesseans and serve as a reference for similar cases across the country.

Appeal for a Stronger Precedent

I’m respectfully urging @AGTennessee Skrmetti to appeal the recent Chancery Court ruling striking down portions of Tennessee’s firearm laws.

Some may assume that asking for an appeal means opposing the ruling — but in this case, it’s the… pic.twitter.com/QPKriqldN6

— Rep Chris Todd (@RepChrisTodd) August 25, 2025

AG Skrmetti has 30 days to appeal the decision from the three-judge panel.

One of the more interesting precedents in this case is the application to long arms. As long arms cannot generally be carried concealed, a ban on open carry is a ban on the carry of long arms. The Second Amendment does not differentiate between long arms and other types of arms.

BREAKING UPDATE: Tennessee’s Governor Bill Lee and Attorney General Skrmetti are appealing the decision. AmmoLand will continue to follow this story.

BREAKING – @GovBillLee and @AGTennessee Skrmetti appeal from trial court ruling declaring 2 TN gun control statutes unconstitutional. Have their violated their oaths by doing so? Are they attacking your 2nd Amendment rights? pic.twitter.com/m0g44mDC0I

— Tennessee Firearms Association (@TennFirearms) September 2, 2025

California’s Carry Restrictions Crumble—Judge Sides with Gun Rights

About Dean Weingarten:

Dean Weingarten has been a peace officer, a military officer, was on the University of Wisconsin Pistol Team for four years, and was first certified to teach firearms safety in 1973. He taught the Arizona concealed carry course for fifteen years until the goal of Constitutional Carry was attained. He has degrees in meteorology and mining engineering, and retired from the Department of Defense after a 30 year career in Army Research, Development, Testing, and Evaluation.