(The Center Square) – The Tennessee Court of Appeals will decide if a ruling declaring two state gun laws unconstitutional will stand, despite objections from some Republican lawmakers.
The laws prohibited carrying firearms in state parks and carrying a gun or club with the “intent to go armed” and use it for violence or aggression.
Gun Owners of America, Gun Owners Foundation and three Tennessee residents sued the state, saying the laws violated their right to bear arms. The suit named Gov. Bill Lee and Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti, both Republicans, as defendants in their official capacity, along with other state and local officials.
A three-judge panel of the Gibson County Chancery Court said the two laws were “unconstitutional, void, and of no effect” in an August ruling, which the state appealed and the Court of Appeals heard Tuesday.
Some lawmakers asked Lee and Skrmetti not to appeal the ruling, Republican state Rep. Monty Fritts said at a gubernatorial forum sponsored by Tennessee Stands.
“They’re using your tax money to argue against your rights,” Fritts said. “That’s a problem.”
Fritts is running for governor against U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn and U.S. Rep. John Rose, who did not attend the forum.
Attorneys for the state gave a three-prong challenge to the ruling during oral arguments before a three-judge Appeals Court panel. The first question was whether the Gibson County Chancery Court had jurisdiction to declare a criminal law unconstitutional. John Harris, representing the Gun Owners of America and others, said he believes the three-judge panel had the “inherent authority” because it is separate and independent.
Chancery courts do not get involved in criminal law, but the case is not a prosecution, Appeals Court Judge Andy Bennett said in a comment to Alan Groves, who argued the case for the state.
Groves said a 2015 ruling says that chancery courts lack standing to issue a declaratory judgment on a criminal statute.
“Second, the court usurped the Legislature’s authority by facially invalidating two firearm statutes, despite numerous constitutional applications of those laws,” Groves said. “And third, the court granted relief to non-parties.”
John Harris, representing the Gun Owners of America and others, said the case is a civil action concerning the scope of the plaintiffs’ civil rights.
“These rights were infringed when the Legislature extended, exceeded, its constitutional boundaries by enacting a statutory scheme that criminalizes, by default, all the conduct subsumed within the scope of those constitutional protections,” Harris said. “Those statutory schemes make it a crime for every person, at all times, in all places within the state, including their own homes, to possess a firearm for the purpose of being armed.”
The court did not indicate when it would make a decision on the case.
