In a move that has sparked significant controversy, the Tennessee legislature is considering a bill that would penalize local governments by cutting state funds if they pass measures that contradict state laws. Tennessee House Speaker Cameron Sexton proposed this legislation after Memphis voters approved several gun-control measures in 2024, despite warnings from Sexton and Lt. Gov. Randy McNally about potential financial repercussions for diverging from state regulations.
The measures put forth by Memphis included requirements for a handgun permit, restrictions on gun storage in cars, assault weapon bans, and the adoption of extreme risk protection orders, also known as red flag laws. These steps were driven by a desire to curb rising gun violence in the city. However, Sexton and McNally maintain that the Tennessee legislature holds the constitutional authority to oversee cities and counties, suggesting that adherence to state laws is essential for local governments to receive state resources.
Republican Adam Lowe sponsors the bill in the Senate, allowing any state lawmaker to file a complaint against a local government that allegedly violates state law. If the attorney general confirms the violation and the local government does not rectify the issue within 30 days, the state could withhold allocated funds. This legislative move underscores the state’s attempt to assert its dominance and ensure that local policies align with state legislation.
Democratic Sen. London Lamar of Memphis has been vocal in her opposition to the bill, arguing that it undermines the separation of powers and encroaches on the judiciary’s role in determining the constitutionality of laws. She advocates for addressing substantial issues rather than fostering legal conflicts. Although the Memphis City Council backed the gun-control measures, Mayor Paul Young opposed placing these questions on the ballot, further complicating the city’s stance.
Attorney General Jonathan Skrmetti previously chose not to challenge a judge’s order that permitted the referendums but criticized them as wasteful and deceptive. The uncertainty surrounding the measures persisted despite their adoption by the Memphis City Council after the referendum. These ordinances are not expected to be implemented unless state laws are modified, leaving Memphis in a precarious position regarding potential state penalties.
Sexton and McNally’s stance reflects a broader effort to maintain state legislative supremacy and ensure consistent statewide regulations. Critics of the proposed legislation argue it hampers local governance and infringes on the judicial process. As the debate continues, the outcome could significantly shape the balance of power between state and local governments in Tennessee, particularly concerning contentious issues like gun control. The situation in Memphis serves as a focal point for these broader legislative discussions and their real-world implications.
