Although the Legislature has not concluded its work, or perhaps a
better phrase would be its “tax increases and other damage,” so far in
2025, it has certainly managed to kill every piece of pro-Second
Amendment legislation that was identified by TFA as a priority. See the Bill Status Report of Supported bills.
Constitutional
Amendment – dead. True constitutional carry – dead. Elimination of
“intent to go armed” – dead. Removing restriction on use of deadly
force to protect real or personal property when necessary – dead. Joining 43 other states that allow longarm carry – dead. Protecting the
Second Amendment as a Civil Right – dead. Criminal immunity for
self-defense use of force – dead.
Next, let’s consider what has passed this year so far. One good
bill (SB1360 by Sen. Hensley and HB873 by Rep. Fritts) which is
predominately an expansion to the existing PLCAA “Protection of Lawful
Commerce of Arms Act” passed this year – but the anti-Second Amendment
Governor could still veto it. Another bill which apparently has an
extremely powerful lobbying voice is the one that now gives those
hunters who don’t look good in “blaze orange” the option to wear
“fluorescent pink” (SB206 by Massey / HB646 by Carringer). The
remaining bills that have passed so far were tracked because they had
broad captions suggesting possible amendments but as passed have
relatively minimal benefit to Second Amendment advocates.
Another bill that passed demonstrates either the animus that Senator
Jack Johnson and Representative William Lamberth have for the Second
Amendment or their schemes to create confusion and opportunities for
arrest for people who are simply trying to exercise their rights.
These two sponsored a caption bill that was amended in committee to do
something entirely different than the original bill suggested. In the
amendment, these two conspired to lower the age for enhanced handgun
permit holders from 21 to 18. See, SB1318/HB1332 as amended) Of course, that is something the state agreed in a 2023 federal settlement (Beeler)
that it would do. However, the federal settlement, which found that
prohibiting those who are 18-20 from carrying a handgun violated the 2nd
and 14th Amendments and constituted a federal civil rights violation.
This change in the law by Sen. Johnson and Rep. Lamberth is silent on
reducing the age limit for concealed handgun permit holders as well as
for those who rely on the the affirmative defenses for permitless carry.
One has to wonder if they intentionally tried to create such
confusion and potentially traps for the unwary or if they are merely
reckless with trying to comply with a federal settlement.
Finally, there are several bills that are scheduled for hearings the
week of April 21, 2025. First, none of the bills advances Second
Amendment rights in Tennessee. None of the bills removes or repeals any
infringements. Several of the bills should implicate the requirements
of the Supreme Court’s Bruen mandate that the state demonstrate
a “national historical tradition” of firearms regulation – but none of
them carry that burden. Frankly, all of the remaining bills should be
defeated. However, of these, please note:
SJR25 by Jack Johnson.
This bill would amend the state constitute to limit or preclude bail
in certain circumstances. This is something that could be done by
statute and that would provide an easier process to fix mistakes if done
by statute (constitutional amendments can only be considered every 4
years). Apparently, this is consider by Senator Johnson and others in
leadership as far more important than HJR53, which was blocked in the
House last week, which seeks to amend the state constitution to bring
it into conformity with the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court’s McDonald (2010) ruling.
HB1093
(Speaker Sexton) / SB1075 (Sen. Jack Johnson) – this is one of those
“headfake” deceptive bills. It was filed as one to modify hearing
procedures if someone’s handgun permit was suspended or revoked. Then,
it was suddenly amended by the House Sponsor to completely change the
effect of the legislation. It now seeks, among other things, to
materially change the definition of a machinegun under state law. The
problem that this creates is that machineguns already have very
technical definitions under federal law and this amendment risks
creating state law ambiguities that could give rise to different
interpretations of state and federal law. Oppose this rushed proposed
change in the law particularly since neither sponsor has a history
establishing a clear or strong understanding of either the 2nd Amendment
or the Supreme Court’s rulings relative to the Second Amendment.
HB33 (Gillispie) – this bill seeks to establish a presumption that a
defendant should not be released on the defendant’s personal
recognizance if the defendant is charged with an offense that involved
the use or display of a firearm or resulted in the serious bodily injury
or death of the victim.
|
