Witnesses warn committee a proposed constitutional change could upend firearm regulation; supporters say it restores original right

The Judiciary Full Committee heard public testimony and an extended debate on House Joint Resolution 53, a proposed constitutional amendment that would replace the state provision about the right to keep and bear arms with language closely mirroring the federal Second Amendment. Proponents said the change restores the original intent of the state’s 1796 constitution and aligns the state text with recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent. Opponents — including the Tennessee District Attorneys General Conference, the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation and statewide law-enforcement organizations — said removing the clause that empowers the General Assembly “to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime” could jeopardize existing criminal statutes and long-standing court precedents.

Sponsor and proponents: Representative Reedy, the sponsor, told the committee he believes the change aligns the state constitution with modern interpretations of the Second Amendment and with U.S. Supreme Court decisions (including Heller and McDonald). He cited historical background, including constitutional language changes in the 19th century, and argued the 1870-era addition was tied to post‑Civil War and Reconstruction-era concerns. He said current Tennessee law generally remains compatible with federal protections but that the state text should not leave room for restrictive state regulation.

Opposition testimony: Stephen Crump, executive director of the Tennessee District Attorneys General Conference, told the committee the amendment could prevent the legislature from continued regulation of firearm-related offenses and cited an 1871 Tennessee Supreme Court opinion as precedent for why the 1870 clause was added. Rachel Russell of the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation echoed that position, telling the committee that sensitive‑place laws, restrictions for people committed as mentally defective, domestic‑violence‑related prohibitions and other statutes could be placed in legal jeopardy by the constitutional change. Sheriffs’ and police representatives said they feared the proposal could undermine statutes used to address violent crime and to disarm dangerous people.

Committee discussion and vote: Members asked whether federal law and U.S. Supreme Court decisions would limit the amendment’s practical impact. Legal witnesses and the DAs’ conference noted that the U.S. Constitution is supreme but stressed that a state constitution that removed explicit legislative authority could still be interpreted by Tennessee courts to limit state regulation beyond current federal floor protections. After testimony and questions, the committee voted to move the resolution to finance, ways and means; the clerk recorded a final tally of 14 ayes and 7 nos.

Bottom line: The testimony showed a clear split: gun-rights proponents want the state constitutional language to mirror federal protections; statewide prosecutors, investigators and policing organizations warned the change could erase statutory tools used to prevent violent crime and to keep firearms from people the law already identifies as dangerous. The committee advanced the measure to the next stage where it will see additional review.