WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 1390

Firearms and Ammunition - As introduced, allows a court to issue an extreme risk protection order upon a finding by clear and convincing evidence that a person poses a significant danger of causing personal injury to the person or others if allowed to possess or purchase a firearm; authorizes a law enforcement officer or relative to file a petition for an extreme risk protection order; creates an offense to store or keep a firearm in any place unless the firearm is secured in a locked container, unloaded, and separate from ammunition except when the firearm is carried by or under the control of the owner or other lawfully authorized user; prohibits a gun dealer from delivering a firearm to a purchaser until 15 business days after the completion of certain requirements. - Amends TCA Title 33; Title 38 and Title 39, Chapter 17.

114th Regular Session (2025-2026) Introduced by Justin Pearson

Bill establishes extreme risk protection orders, mandatory secure firearm storage, and 15-day purchase waiting period to reduce gun violence while raising constitutional and due process concerns.

Placed on s/c cal Civil Justice Subcommittee for 3/18/2026
#firearmsandammunition
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 1390

Legislative bill overview

HB 1390 establishes extreme risk protection orders (ERPOs) that allow courts to temporarily restrict firearm access for individuals deemed a significant danger to themselves or others based on clear and convincing evidence. The bill also mandates secure storage of firearms when not in use and imposes a 15-day waiting period for firearm purchases.

Why is this important

These provisions affect public safety policy, individual rights to firearm ownership, and family intervention in mental health crises. The bill addresses gun violence prevention while raising questions about due process, constitutional rights, and enforcement mechanisms in Tennessee.

Potential points of contention

  • Constitutional concerns: Second Amendment advocates argue ERPOs and waiting periods infringe on gun rights, while supporters contend they represent reasonable regulations comparable to other states
  • Due process standards: "Clear and convincing evidence" is a high legal threshold, but critics worry about ex parte (one-sided) hearings and the burden on defendants to prove they're not dangerous
  • Secure storage requirements: Gun owners may face compliance challenges and liability questions, while public safety advocates argue this prevents accidents and unauthorized access
  • Implementation costs: Courts and law enforcement must administer ERPO petitions, raising questions about funding and training across rural and urban areas

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.