A RESOLUTION to propose an amendment to Article I, Section 26 of the Constitution of Tennessee, relative to the right to keep and bear arms.
Summary
House Joint Resolution 53 proposes a constitutional amendment to Article I, Section 26 of the Tennessee Constitution concerning the right to keep and bear arms. The resolution would delete the current language stating that citizens have a right to keep and bear arms for their common defense and that the Legislature may regulate the wearing of arms to prevent crime, and replace it with a shorter statement: “That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms.”
Because this is a joint resolution proposing a constitutional amendment, it does not itself change statutory law. Instead, it would advance the proposed amendment for consideration by the next General Assembly and, if approved through the constitutional amendment process, would alter the state constitution’s firearms-rights provision and remove the explicit constitutional language recognizing legislative authority to regulate the wearing of arms to prevent crime. The resolution also directs publication of the proposed amendment on state websites as required by the Tennessee Constitution.
Impact
If adopted through the constitutional amendment process, the measure would narrow and simplify Tennessee’s constitutional text on firearms rights by removing the existing clause that expressly preserves legislative power to regulate the wearing of arms to prevent crime. That could affect future interpretation of state authority over firearms regulation, but the resolution itself does not amend the Tennessee Code or directly change any criminal, licensing, or weapons statutes. Its immediate legal effect is to place the proposal before the next General Assembly and require public notice.
Sentiment
The available vote history suggests the proposal has received some support in committee but not overwhelming consensus. It passed the House Civil Justice Subcommittee 5-1 and the House Judiciary Committee 14-7, indicating a generally favorable reception among supporters of gun-rights expansion, while still drawing meaningful opposition. No transcript discussion is available, so the recorded votes are the main indicator of sentiment.
Contention
The central point of contention is the removal of the constitutional language allowing the Legislature to regulate the wearing of arms to prevent crime. Supporters likely view the amendment as strengthening and clarifying the individual right to keep and bear arms, while opponents may be concerned that deleting the explicit regulatory language could limit the state’s ability to enact firearms restrictions or public-safety measures. The split committee votes indicate that gun regulation and the balance between individual rights and legislative police power are the primary areas of disagreement.