According to TFA, the amendment does more than clean up language. While it appears to remove Tennessee’s long‑criticized “intent to go armed” provision and broaden lawful carry in parks, the group argues that the bill also introduces new criminal restrictions that may not survive scrutiny under the Second Amendment or the Due Process Clause.
The biggest concerns center on Section 21, which creates a new offense for having, carrying, or exhibiting a firearm in a public place “in an alarming, careless, angry, or threatening manner,” unless acting in necessary self‑defense. TFA says those terms are so subjective that ordinary citizens may have no clear sense of what is prohibited—and that police and prosecutors could interpret them unevenly.
Legal challenges would likely hinge on two issues. First, under the U.S. Supreme Court’s Bruen decision—reaffirmed in Rahimi—the State must show that any firearm restriction aligns with the nation’s historical tradition of regulation as of 1791. TFA argues the amendment does not meet that standard. Second, vague terms like “alarming” or “angry” may violate long‑standing constitutional rules requiring criminal laws to be clear and objective…