In layman’s terms: court dismisses challenge against Memphis gun control laws because they are not legally enforceable.
On October 22, a Tennessee court dismissed a case challenging the city of Memphis’ 2023 gun control laws that opposed the state’s preemption law and infringed upon due process and the rights of law-abiding gun owners.
In the case of Timmerman v. City of Memphis, the court dismissed the case without prejudice (meaning it can be brought again at a future point), concluding that the plaintiffs “lacked subject matter jurisdiction.” The decision followed oral arguments on the motion to dismiss the case in August of 2025.
As we previously reported, the case was brought in November of 2024 by Gun Owners of America (GOA) and Gun Owners Foundation (GOF), together with the Tennessee Firearms Association. The complaint addressed Memphis Ordinance No. 5926, which banned unlicensed handguns and “assault weapons” and allowed unlawful Extreme Risk Protection Orders for search and seizure of firearms against those deemed to be “dangerous,” all three of which were preempted and contrary to state law.
In his October 22, 16-page decision, Chancellor James R. Newsom III wrote, “The Court concludes that the provisions of the Ordinance are not enforceable or self-executing….The Ordinance expressly conditions the effectiveness…on enabling state or federal legislation or court action. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ claims are not justiciable and are due for dismissal.”
The case turns on a bit of a technicality in that earlier in the year, the Tennessee State General Assembly passed a pro-Second Amendment measure, Public Chapter 329 (S.B. 1360), which amended state law to broaden state firearms preemption (or protection from municipalities passing anti-gun laws that would preempt, or override the state’s protections on firearms and firearms ownership).
In response, the city of Memphis amended its ordinance to read, “… Council has no present intention to authorize enforcement and implementation of any provisions of Ordinance No. 5908 that are inconsistent with state law…” Or in other words, don’t worry, we won’t enforce any of this law that might be incompatible with state law.
Thus, the court ruled that the complaint was “not ripe at the time that the instant action was filed because Referendum Ordinance 5908 was not self-executing”.
The court decision isn’t what the Second Amendment community would normally hope for in such a victory – a fully developed case with a decision ruling that the challenged laws are unconstitutional – but nonetheless suggests that such an outcome would be likely if the case was heard on the merits:
The Court notes that the Ordinance and those who proposed it engaged in “virtue signaling” in that the Ordinance is dead as a proverbial doornail as a matter of Tennessee law…. The General Assembly could be no more clear that the Ordinance is a dead letter.
This case highlights an important issue that continues as a thread in all gun control challenges: there is no punitive mechanism to prevent jurisdictions from proposing and passing unconstitutional measures in the first place, other than activism, being involved, and ultimately appointing elected officials that will uphold and protect the Constitution.
