Tennessee Fights to Revive “Going Armed” Law After Court Rules It Unconstitutional
Tennessee’s attempt to revive two gun-control statutes moved to the Court of Appeals on June 23, 2026, as judges heard argument in Stephen L. Hughes, et al. v. Bill Lee, et al., a major right-to-carry case challenging the state’s “Going Armed” law and its ban on carrying firearms in many public recreational areas.
The case stems from a ruling by a special three-judge Chancery Court panel that declared Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1307(a)(1), the state’s “Going Armed” statute, and Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1311(a), the Parks Statute, unconstitutional, void, and of no effect.
At issue is whether Tennessee can continue treating ordinary public carry as a criminal offense under a vague “intent to go armed” theory, and whether the state can broadly prohibit carry across large areas of public land. For gun owners, the case is about far more than technical statutory language. It is about whether Tennessee’s carry laws can survive the Supreme Court’s modern Second Amendment test after Heller, Bruen, and Rahimi.
The laws are leftovers from the Reconstruction era, when they were designed to keep freed slaves and other disfavored groups disarmed. Here is a link to a copy of the order of the three judge panel.
Three-Judge Panel Ruled the Statutes Unconstitutional
The case was filed as a civil lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of the two statutes. The case was referred from the Chancery Court in Gibson County. Chancery Courts in Tennessee are equity courts. They do not hear criminal cases. The Gibson County Court referred the case to the Tennessee Supreme Court, which created a three judge panel Chancery Court, as required by Tennessee law, specifically to hear civil cases challenging the constitutionality of Tennessee statutes.
The Supreme Court created the three judge panel to hear the case in accordance with Rule 54, as meeting the requirements of a civil challenge that:
(1) challenges the constitutionality of a state statute, including a statute that apportions or redistricts state legislative or congressional districts; or an executive order; or an administrative rule or regulation; and
(2) includes a claim for declaratory judgment or injunctive relief;
The three judge Chancery Court, created by the Supreme Court, held for the plaintiffs the challenged statutes were facially invalid. They infringed on rights protected by the Second Amendment. From the last page of the opinion:
“For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED, and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. As a result, the Going Armed Statute, Tenn. Code Ann.§ 39 J7-l307(a),38 and the Parks Statute, Tenn. Code Ann.§ 39-17-131 J(a), are hereby DECLARED unconstitutional, void, and of no effect.”
State Argues Jurisdiction and Facial-Challenge Issues
The State of Tennessee appealed the decision. It is the oral arguments of the appeal which were heard on June 23, 2026. Judge Andy D. Bennet asked most of the questions.
Mr. Edwin A. Groves, Jr. submitted oral arguments for the state. The major argument appeared to be a claim the Chancery Court does not have jurisdiction in the case. The claim was Chancery Courts cannot hear criminal cases. But, the case is a civil challenge to the validity of a criminal statute, not a criminal case. The Supreme Court appointed the panel. Judge Bennet appeared skeptical of the idea the Supreme Court would appoint a court without jurisdiction in the case.
Mr. Groves also claimed the Appellees could not win a facial challenge, because the laws could apply to “dangerous and unusual weapons” and/or that the intent to go armed could mean the same as going armed to the terror of the public.
Judge Bennet asked if the case is about the Second Amendment, because the Tennessee Constitution cannot have less protection than the Second Amendment. This clarified the merits of the case were about infringements on the Second Amendment.
John I. Harris, III. gave the oral arguments for the appellees. He first decreed this was a civil case, not a criminal case, and the three judge Chancery court had jurisdiction. Then he made clear the statutes in question infringed on Second Amendment rights. He cited law to the effect states may not use procedural mechanisms to defeat a right the federal courts would uphold.
Harris also stated the Supreme Court in Heller, Bruen, and Rahimi held the fringe issues of “Dangerous and unusual weapons” or “going armed to the terror” of the public did not invalidate the facial challenge, because they did not invalidate the challenge in the Supreme Court decisions Heller, Bruen, or Rahimi.
It is difficult to understand why the State of Tennessee is challenging the three judge Chancery court on this issue. The Tennessee statutes clearly infringe on Second Amendment rights. The State is primarily arguing procedural issues. It is difficult to see how this benefits Governor Lee or the State of Tennessee.
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.
