Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti has taken some pretty strong positions in support of our right to keep and bear arms, including signing on to a recent amicus brief urging the Supreme Court to overturn a decision upholding the draconian requirements for non-residents to bear arms in the state of Massachusetts.
So why is Skrmetti fighting to keep some gun control laws in place after a Tennessee court ruled the statutes are unconstitutional? As we reported earlier this month, a three judge panel in the state concluded that Tennessee’s law criminalizing the “intent to go armed” and the statute prohibiting most lawful carry in “public recreational areas” violate our Second Amendment rights. Skrmetti and Gov. Bill Lee have appealed that decision, which is already cause for alarm among Second Amendment supporters in the Volunteer State, but as Tennessee Firearms Association reports, the AG is now asking the court to allow the state to continue to enforce these laws while the case is on appeal.
On September 10, 2025, the three-judge panel completely rejected the motion by Bill Lee and Jonathan Skrmetti seeking to allow them to continue to enforce these statutes pending the state Defendants’ appeal. The Panel did not merely deny the motion, it shredded it on every issue that the state Defendants raised.
Failing repeatedly before the three-judge panel, on September 15, 2025, Bill Lee and Jonathan Skrmetti have now filed a 25 page “Emergency Motion for Stay Pending Appeal” with the Court of Appeals which they supported with two volumes of appendixes totaling 389 pages.
Skrmetti argues in his appeal that the Chancery Court panel that the laws in question “are some of the most gun-friendly laws in American history”, which is downright laughable. The “intent to go armed” law gives police reasonable cause to believe a crime is being committed if they simply see someone bearing arms, even on their own property. Copes can stop, detain, pat down, question, and arrest someone just for carrying a gun, and it’s up to the gun owner to raise an affirmative defense that that they were lawfully carrying; an argument that has to be raised in court after an arrest has been made and charges have been filed.
Skrmetti points out that the prohibition on carrying in “public recreational areas” has a carveout for individuals with valid carry licenses, but Tennessee is a permitless carry state, so the statute imposes additional burdens on citizens before they can exercise their right to bear arms in those places.
These are hardly some of the most “gun-friendly” laws in the country. They’re not even among the gun-friendliest laws in the state of Tennessee.
Skrmetti’s latest appeal also argues that the Chancery Court panel doesn’t have the authority to invalidate criminal statutes. If that was the only argument raised by the AG, the appeal might be defensible as a legitimate action to define the scope of a Chancery Court’s authority. But Skrmetti continues to defend the laws on Second Amendment grounds as well, arguing that the laws should survive a facial challenge because they’re constitutional in at least some circumstances.
if the statutes are “void, and of no effect,” there is no Tennessee law against a drunk wandering with his shotgun down Broadway in Nashville, or through Shelby Farms in Memphis, or across Market Square in Knoxville. Surviving law only prohibits possessing a handgun while under the influence or carrying a firearm while drinking in a public establishment serving alcohol. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1321. And sure, Tennessee law also prohibits “fighting,” refusing “to obey an official order to disperse,” and creating a “hazardous” condition“ with intent to cause public annoyance or alarm.” Tenn. Code Ann.§ 39-17-305. But Plaintiffs would no doubt agree that walking around with a shotgun is not a crime under that statute, making it an imperfect tool at best to prevent the armed-and-drunk from wandering the streets.
Under the chancery court’s declaration, there is no Tennessee law against a fan wearing a bandolier of (federally-licensed) grenades to the little league baseball game at a local park. Gangs may join the voting lines at their community center toting an array of weapons. Plaintiffs may again point to other laws that could be stretched to deter or prevent some of these extremes, but that proves the point. If Plaintiffs agree that certain conduct can and should be prohibited, and the General Assembly enacted laws that prohibit it, those laws should not be erased in their entirety by a court.
Anyone wandering down the street with a shotgun while they’re drunk would be violating Tennessee’s public drunkenness law. Skrmetti’s claim that someone could show up to a Little League game with a bandolier of grenades is just downright absurd. Even if that unlikely event were to happen, Tennessee’s disorderly conduct law allows for arrest and charges when someone is “behaving in a manner that is violent or threatening towards others in a public area.” If Gary Grenade isn’t acting in a violent or threatening manner, then there’s no issue. If he is, then he’s committing a crime and can be arrested.
The fact that Skrmetti is inventing these wild hypotheticals to argue the laws are facially constitutional is a sign of the weakness of his argument, in my opinion. Here’s hoping the appellate court finds them just as unpersuasive as the Chancery Court panel did when it rejected his request for a stay a few days ago.
Editor’s Note: Most Republicans across the country are doing everything they can to protect our Second Amendment rights and right to self-defense, though there are obviously some exceptions.
Help us continue to report on their efforts. Join Bearing Arms VIP and use promo code FIGHT to get 60% off your VIP membership.
Read the full article here
