You would think your “servant” legislators, Governor and Attorney General would obey their constitutionally required Oaths to uphold the constitutions of the State and Union, but nooo, can’t have that … why, the People might actually be able to enjoy the rights which are naturally theirs predating the constitutions and that are protected from government infringement in our constitutions.!

If you put your faith in that, I have some beachfront property for sale in Weakley County TN….

This is the chronology of the circus that is the long running case of Hughes et al. v. Lee et al…

The Hughes et al. v. Lee et al. case began when Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation and three (3) Tennessee Firearms Association members who are Gibson County residents (Stephen L. Hughes, Elaine Kehel and Duncan O’Mara) filled a complaint (February 16, 2023) in Chancery Court for Gibson County which asked the court to rule that Tennessee’s “parks statute” (TCA 39-017-1311 (a)) and the related statutory scheme which makes it a crime to carry a firearm with the intent to go armed (39-17-1307(a)) are unconstitutional. Defendants named were Governor Bill Lee and Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, both in their official capacities as representatives of the State.

As is required in any instance of a challenge to a constitutional issue, a three judge panel was constituted under Tenn. Code Ann. § 20-18-101.That statute, a relatively new invention of the Legislature, required a duly appointed three-judge panel to:

“hear[] and determine[]” certain constitutional challenges to state law.”- Order on the Parties’ Cross-Motions for Summary Judgment, Hughes et al. v. Lee et al. 23CV-24475, 13 (Ch. Ct. TN, Aug. 22, 2025) https://tinyurl.com/Motion-for-stay

Once it is determined that the three-judge panel statute applies, the Tennessee Supreme Court appoints two additional Judges to that panel. In this case the remaining judges were both from the ranks of the Circuit Court..

The state responded seeking to have the case tossed by virtue of its assertion that the defendants named were not the correct parties. However, the duly constituted three-judge court ruled that the named defendants were in fact subject to the suit as the Governor’s constitutional obligation is stated in Article 3 § 10 as:

“He shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”

Tennessee case law also requires that in a constitutional challenge the Attorney General must be a defendant, or at least, put on notice. Either choice is permissible.

I think it appropriate to pause and look at the scheme for picking Appellate Judges. Tennessee’s Supreme Court and Appellate Judges all owe their respective positions to the Governor’s appointments i.e. “unelected” by the people. Appellate Court Judges are appointed by the Governor. Supreme Court Justices are picked by the Governor for approval by the legislature. The Attorney General is elected by the Supreme Court, typically after a recommendation is made by the Governor. Of note, that job description of the Attorney General is to protect the state and its power, not the People.

With that bit of trivia out of the way…

The state next challenged the ability of a Chancery Court to issue an injunction under the rules of procedure, to which the court concurred.

Yet, the case proceeded on the issue of whether the three-judge court would issue a Declaratory Judgement (which IS permissible under jurisprudence rules). The panel then considered the issues at hand.

The parks statutes states:

(a) It is an offense for any person to possess or carry, whether openly or concealed, with the intent to go armed, any weapon prohibited by § 39-17-1302(a), not used solely for instructional, display or sanctioned ceremonial purposes, in or on the grounds of any public park, playground, civic center or other building facility, area or property owned, used or operated by any municipal, county or state government, or instrumentality thereof, for recreational purposes.

As referenced in 39-17-1311(a), 39-17-1302(a) provides:

A person commits an offense who intentionally or knowingly possesses, manufactures, transports, repairs or sells:

(1) An explosive or an explosive weapon;
(2) A device principally designed, made or adapted for delivering or shooting an explosive weapon;
(3) A machine gun;
(4) Hoax device;
(5) Knuckles; or
(6) Any other implement for infliction of serious bodily injury or death that has no common lawful purpose.

39-17-1307 (a) states:

“A person commits an offense who carries, with the intent to go armed, a firearm or a club.”

The three judge court found in favor of the plaintiffs. That court unanimously held that 39-17-1311(a) and 39-17-1307(a) were unconstitutional.

Next the Defendants sought a stay of the Order by the trial court, which was rejected unanimously.

The Governor and Attorney General then appealed and sought an emergency stay from the Appellate Court, which was granted per curiam (unanimous decision) without stating a reason for the stay.

Rule 7 of procedure mandates that for Appellate Motions panels (and case law requires) an appellate review of an order to stay MUST reference an abuse of discretion on the part of the trial court for its ruling on the stay. Although the trial court unanimously issued a lengthy opinion supporting its decision to deny the State’s requested stay, the ruling by the Court of Appeals gave no reasoning for its disagreement with the trial court - it merely granted the stay.

So now after over two years, Tennessee Second Amendment advocates simply asking to be allowed to enjoy the full benefit of their rights promised by the Founders, tens of thousands of dollars of donated money for that effort being expended, and then those same individuals taxed by the state to keep that from happening…the People are still denied by our state government( Specifically Governor Lee and Attorney General Skrmetti) their basic Civil Right to arms.

The original construct of the 1796 state constitution’s Second Amendment analogue stated:

“That the free men of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defence.(sic)”

It is obvious because of the actions of those currently controlling Tennessee’s government and their predecessors, that Tennesseans are no longer free men!
It is equally obvious that in order to recapture our rights and freedom that Tennesseans will need not only to figuratively take up arms (in the courts) to protect our rights from our own state officials, but that Tennesseans will also need to replace those in Republican leadership who support the defendant’s stance with true constitutional stewards and not more statist career politicians who will continue this history of tyranny.