On August 22, 2025, a panel of three Tennessee judges ruled that Tennessee’s “intent to go armed” statute violates the Tennessee Constitution and the Second Amendment. The court also declared unconstitutional Tennessee’s statute which makes it a criminal offense to merely carry certain weapons in parks and recreational areas even if for self-defense. See, Stephen Hughes, et al., v. Bill Lee, et al., Gibson Chancery No: 24475. (This ruling was discussed in more detail in two prior posts issued on August 22 and August 23.) That ruling has generated many questions such as “is it in effect now”?

The court’s conclusion states: “the Going Armed Statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-l307(a), and the Parks Statute, Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1311(a), are hereby DECLARED unconstitutional, void, and of no effect.” (emphasis added and footnote omitted)

On its face, the ruling not only declares these statutes unconstitutional but also declares that they are both “void” and “of no effect.” Thus, it would be reasonable for people to draw from that ruling, which is correctly stated, that these statutes are presently void and unenforceable. Indeed, it is likely that any government official or officer who seeks to enforce these voided statutes after the date of the ruling may be doing so at risk of being held accountable for federal civil rights violations.

However, anyone reading this needs to do so with an understanding that a ruling typically is not completely final at this stage.

First, the ruling was one that both granted summary judgment to the Plaintiffs and denied it to the government Defendants. As such, the ruling likely resolves all issues that were pending before the court (with the exception of the requests for legal expenses and fees). Assuming that is accurate, either party can still ask the court to alter or amend the ruling under Tennessee’s Rules of Civil Procedure (see, e.g., Rule 59, Tennessee Rules of Civil Procedure) and would have at least 30 days to make such request.

Second, assuming that the ruling is not altered or amended by the court, either party could appeal from the ruling. Such appeals typically have to be initiated within 30 days. (Rule 4, Tennessee Rules of Appellate Procedure).

Under either of these two options it will be at least 30 days before the ruling is “final” but it could easily be longer if Governor Bill Lee or Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, or any of the other Defendants, decided to ask the three-judge panel to revise its ruling or if they appeal. Of course, doing either of those creates the uncomfortable paradox that those Defendants would be expending taxpayer funds seeking to preserve unconstitutional statutes while at the same time they have each taken an oath of office to uphold and defend the constitutions and to protect the rights of citizens. Indeed, it is possible that one or more appeals to drag this issue through the courts for several more years.

A third consideration is that while these statutes may have been declared unconstitutional, void and of no effect, the Legislature, which has refused to repeal these statutes for decades, will be back in session in January 2026. While certain Legislators are already celebrating this ruling since they have tried to repeal these statutes, others including several of those in leadership are likely already scheming as to how they could gut the ruling by passing new legislation. Indeed, one particular legislator in the House would likely be telling others that the Legislature can and should pass new, slightly different laws doing essentially the same thing, and those laws would be enforceable for years or decades until someone successfully challenges them in the future.

Thus, government officials must tread lightly until the status of the ruling finalizes. Should they take action to enforce these laws, they put themselves individually and the government entities at risk of lawsuits claiming, for example, federal civil rights violations. District attorneys and judges must consider whether pending prosecutions can or should continue. But, by the same measure, individuals must weigh the risk of relying on the ruling prior to any possible revision or appellate reversal.

Of course, almost all this uncertainty regarding the ruling would end if Governor Bill Lee and Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti would simply announce today that they are accepting the court’s ruling and that there will be no appeal. It might also be relevant if at least the top contenders for governor in the 2026 elections would issue a unanimous demand on the existing officials to accept the ruling and consent to its finality.

If you appreciate this effort, this ruling and TFA’s dedication to protecting our rights, please consider joining and supporting TFA by being a member. Further, if you would like to help fund this and other litigation efforts, please consider a tax deductible contribution to the Tennessee Firearms Foundation.

Tennessee Firearms Association cannot give legal advice and if you need assistance in a specific set of facts you should consult an attorney.