Gun Rights Activists Sue Memphis Over Uncertainty Created By Gun Control Ballot Measure

Last updated on November 14th, 2024 at 08:15 am

Gun rights activists have filed a lawsuit to halt new gun control measures in Memphis, Tennessee, which were approved through a ballot measure in the 2024 election.

The ballot measure first asks whether people should be allowed to carry a handgun in the city of Memphis without possessing a valid handgun carry permit. The question runs in contrast to existing Tennessee law, which allows permitless carry in the state.

A second question under the ballot measure is whether voters support a laws in Memphis known as “extreme risk protection orders,” often referred to as “red flag” laws, that would authorize a court to allow law enforcement authorities to seize a person’s firearms if the court deems that person a threat, even if they’ve committed no crime.

A third question under the ballot measure asks whether Memphis should ban the possession and commercial sale of so-called “assault rifles”—a term not actually defined by the ballot measure.

More than 80 percent of voters voted in favor of the gun control proposals described in each of the three questions under the ballot measure.

Individual plaintiff Ty Timmerman filed a complaint in the state’s 30th Judicial Court District on Nov. 13, along with the the Tennessee Firearms Association, Gun Owners of America (GOA), and GOA’s non-profit arm the Gun Owners Foundation, challenging the legality of the ballot measure.

The complaint primarily argues that the proposed gun control measures would run afoul of Tennessee’s state “preemption” law, which bars local and municipal authorities from deviating from the state’s gun laws.

Even before the ballot measure went to a vote, the the Memphis City Council members acknowledged the ballot measure would conflict with the state preemption law. The lawsuit notes these comments by local council officials.

The complaint quotes Memphis City Councilman Jeff Warren as saying the ballot measure, though likely unenforceable, would “send a message” to the state legislature, urging the state to allow municipalities to decide their own gun laws independent of the state.

“What we’re hoping to see is that the state legislature will look and say, ‘One size doesn’t fit all with this. Our urban centers have different problems than our rural centers. Let’s tailor our laws
to help all the citizens,'” Warren said.

Tennessee Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti has called the ballot measure a “fraud on the voters” and “a futile stunt that wastes time and money.” Nevertheless, Shelby County Chancellor Melanie Taylor Jefferson ruled the people of Memphis could vote on the ballot measure.

While the ballot measure remains unenforceable without a change in the state’s preemption law, the plaintiffs believe the ballot measure is worded so poorly as to create actionable damages.

“Contrary to comments made by various City Councilmembers and news media, the approved ballot measures are not merely a plea for help without force of law. Rather, pursuant to Section 5 of the Ordinance, all three measures ‘take effect … on January 1, 2025,'” the complaint states.

The ballot measure’s question pertaining to the “assault weapons” ban, stipulates individuals who have owned these undefined weapons before Jan. 1, 2025 would be “pre-existing owners.” The complaint notes the ballot measure “fails to explain the relevance of being a ‘pre-existing purchaser,'” thus creating uncertainty.

GOA argued its members, including various gun stores in Memphis, “face grave uncertainty” due to the “assault weapons” ban language in the ballot measure, both due to the undefined nature of the term as used in the ballot measure, and the importance of being “pre-existing purchasers” of such items. The complaint states that the ballot measure leaves unclear the legal status “of large portions of their business inventory under the Ordinance, which threatens imminent revenue losses come January 1, 2025.”

The lawsuit argues violations of the state’s preemption laws also entitle the plaintiffs to the greater sum of either actual damages attributable to the ordinance, or three times the plaintiff’s attorney’s fees to resolve the legal uncertainty. The complaint argues the plaintiffs are also entitled to recover court costs and fees from the city.