In 2025, a Tennessee court overturned one of the state’s oldest gun control laws. Although Governor Bill Lee’s administration continues to support and defend that law, the legislature is finally making attempts to remove or change the status of the offensive statutes. But as with many lawmaking bodies across the country, both state and federal, they have attempted to shoehorn unrelated topics into the proposed legislation that could have unintended consequences.
In August 2025, a three-judge panel of the Chancery Court struck down Tennessee’s 200-year-old “intent to go armed” statute, as well as the statute that prohibits individuals from carrying firearms in parks, forests, greenways, and other similar recreational areas.
Republican Governor Bill Lee and his administration vigorously defended the law, appealing the decision and arguing in its brief that, “Ultimately, this case is not about sorting all the hypothetical applications of Tennessee’s firearms laws into abstract categories of constitutionality.”
The case is now at the Tennessee Court of Appeals awaiting briefs from each party (plaintiffs filed their brief on March 6). This is not an insignificant case. It is backed by Gun Owners of America and Gun Owners Foundation.
House Bill 2064 (and SB2467, its Senate twin) is an attempt by the legislature to remedy the issues addressed in the court case, specifically by repealing the two offending statutes: “intent to go armed” (Section 39-17-1307(a)) and the ban on carrying firearms in public parks, greenways, and recreational areas (Section 39-17-1311).
The House version was filed on January 23 by Representative Chris Todd (R-Madison County, District 73), while the companion Senate version was filed by Senator Paul Bailey (R-Sparta, District 15) on February 2. It advanced out of subcommittee on March 11 in a 7-2 vote and will head to the full House Judiciary Committee on March 18, 2026.
However, the proposed bills have raised the hackles of the Tennessee Firearms Association:
The Tennessee Firearms Association’s assessment of the bill suggested that while some provisions of the bill were desirable – such as the sections repealing the two statutes that the three-judge panel had declared unconstitutional – other provisions suggested that the legislation contained additions that, while perhaps desirable, should never have been included in a bill that should have merely repealed the two unconstitutional provisions and done some cleanup work necessitated by the repeal of those provisions.
We encourage Tennessee residents to contact their legislators about this bill. See the “What can you do” section of the article linked here.
Thanks for sharing, John Harris, Exec. Dir. Tennessee Firearms Association