https://bearingarms.com/camedw...-gun-owners-n1229699

Like a majority of other states, Tennessee allows for lawful gun owners to legally carry a firearm (concealed or openly) without having to obtain a state-issued permission slip, but a Volunteer State statute also makes it illegal for someone to carry "with the intent to go armed, a firearm or club."

As the Tennessee Firearms Association points out, that law allows for law enforcement officers to have "reasonable cause to believe a crime is being committed just by observing a person carry or wearing a firearm – even in their own yard," which in turn allows police to stop, detain, question, search, charge, and arrest someone just for carrying a gun.

While gun owners can rase an affirmative defense that they were lawfully carrying, that's an argument that has to be raised in court after an arrest has been made and charges have been filed.

The statute clearly conflicts with the state's permitless carry law adopted in 2021, but it's remained on the books and enforceable over the past four years. As the TFA reports, though, a three-judge panel has sided with the plaintiffs, who include three TFA members as well as Gun Owners of America and Gun Owners Foundation, in a legal challenge to the statute.

Recognizing the statute’s function, the court’s ruling stated “As such, the Going Armed Statute criminalizes conduct within the scope of the Second Amendment as discussed above. Such conduct is presumed to be constitutionally protected—in other words, this statute is presumed to be unconstitutional—unless Defendants can demonstrate that regulation of carrying a weapon with
the intent to go armed is within the historical tradition of this nation.”

Turning to the arguments by Defendants Gov. Lee and Attorney General Skrmetti, which the court rejected, the court stated “Defendants’ arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive because they make no defense of nor even address the constitutional infirmity at the heart of the statute—the criminalization of the constitutional right to bear arms. . . . Defendants do not satisfy their flipped burden under Bruen and have in no way demonstrated a plainly legitimate sweep for proscribing in toto, subject to narrow exceptions in subsequent subsections, the right to bear arms.”

In striking down the intent to go armed statute as violating both the 2nd Amendment and the Tennessee Constitution, the court concluded by stating “this Court holds that the Going Armed Statute violates the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and therefore also violates Article I, Section 26 of the Tennessee Constitution. With respect to the Going Armed Statute, Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED….”

The TFA/GOA lawsuit also sought to strike down the state's ban on lawful carry in parks... and they were equally successful. The panel rejected the state's argument that parks are "sensitive places", which was the right call. When was the last time that you went to a park that had metal detectors or an armed police presence at secured entrances?

What's more, the panel of state judges held that these laws are facially unconstitutional, meaning there is no circumstance where they can be enforced.

Finally, the Defendants asserted that should the court rule in favor of the Plaintiffs that the determination that these statutes are unconstitutional should be limited and protect only the Plaintiffs and not all Tennesseans. The court likewise rejected that request by the Defendants. Instead, the court stated “Plaintiffs here have vindicated their constitutional rights. No government official, or the public for that matter, has a legitimate interest in the enforcement of unconstitutional laws. Tennesseans that are not party to this action may unintentionally benefit from the protection of their constitutional rights, but no right of theirs could be prejudiced by the relief sought by Plaintiffs. Accordingly, we do not limit the scope of the declaratory relief sought by and now granted to Plaintiffs.”

It's incredibly disappointing that the state actively defended these statutes, but it's also ridiculous that the Republican-controlled legislature hasn't already repealed them given the flagrant conflict with our right to keep and bear arms. Gov. Bill Lee and Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti could still appeal the panel's decision to the Tennessee Supreme Court, but hopefully they've seen the light. If not, gun owners should make them feel the heat and contact their offices to express their concern about wasting taxpayer dollars to defend statutes that are fundamentally at odds with our right to keep and bear arms.

Intent to go armed was confusing to me given the constitutional carry status here in TN. Seemed schizophrenic to me.

quote:

Originally posted by darthfuster:
Intent to go armed was confusing to me given the constitutional carry status here in TN. Seemed schizophrenic to me.

Sounds like carrying was only legal if you didn't know you were carrying.

All the more reason for me to go home to TN to retire.

quote:

Intent to go armed

Still loving this State. We have zero regrets of moving here.

quote:

Volunteer State statute also makes it illegal for someone to carry "with the intent to go armed, a firearm or club."

What the hell does intent to go armed , even mean?
I guess it should be a no-brainer to end this confusion.

quote:

Originally posted by smschulz:

quote:

Volunteer State statute also makes it illegal for someone to carry "with the intent to go armed, a firearm or club."

What the hell does intent to go armed , even mean?
I guess it should be a no-brainer to end this confusion.

That’s what I was thinking when I moved here and was learning the law before carrying. Speculation, but I suspect intent to go armed was a condition that allowed a gray area for LE to act at will regardless of constitutional carry. All I did was resolve to carry very concealed. I’ve been traveling a lot but when I get more time at home I will get a carry permit for a short list of conveniences.

quote:

Defendants do not satisfy their flipped burden under Bruen...

There, in a few words, is the crux of the problem. Until Heller the citizens had to prove the restrictions were unconstitutional.

Now, that is flipped.

For a .gov imposed restriction to be constitutional, the .gov now has to prove it, not the other way around.

Had a police officer tell me once “If you’re not waving it around like an idiot, no one knows you have one”.