On March 29, Tennessee’s House Criminal Justice Subcommittee took up HB2524 by Rep. Jerry Sexton. To be clear, Tennessee Firearms Association still supports Rep. Jerry Sexton on this bill but there are some serious concerns with the amendment that was added and the fact that this amendment may make some individuals who can today lawfully purchase and possess firearms in Tennessee unable to do so if the language in the amendment is not carefully reconsidered and addressed.
Because of comments and objections from some GOP subcommittee members at the subcommittee hearing on March 23 (video) an amendment was offered to the original bill. The amendment does some things that would not only prohibit some people, perhaps individuals with carry permits, from carrying a gun in Tennessee but the amendment has the ability of completely destroying the right of these individuals to purchase or possess any firearm. That is a substantial problem not only for some Tennesseans but the amendment would also potentially make criminals of some people who are visiting Tennessee and relying either on reciprocity or “permitless carry” laws in Tennessee.
HB2524 deletes the existing statute which makes it a crime for citizens to carry a firearm in Tennessee. That simple step creates a statutory constitutional carry environment. The concerns arise from provisions which were contained only in the Amendment and which are not part of existing law. The amendment is worded to say that it is a crime for individuals in certain categories to “possess” a firearm. By using the term “possess” rather than perhaps “to carry with intent to go armed” creates a prohibited person status for anyone who meets the conditions of the prohibition.
These are the three specific provisions of section (a)(1) that were added by the amendment which are creating this concern:
(H) Has been convicted of stalking as prohibited by § 39-17-315;
(I) Has been convicted of the offense of driving under the influence of an intoxicant in this or any other state two (2) or more times within the prior ten (10) years or one (1) time within the prior five (5) years; or
(J) Has been adjudicated as a mental defective, judicially committed to or hospitalized in a mental institution pursuant to title 33, or had a court appoint a conservator for the person by reason of a mental defect.
The provision on stalking only does one thing – it takes an existing non-violent misdemeanor and makes anyone with that prior conviction a “prohibited person” not just for carrying a firearm but also from purchasing or possessing a firearms. Under current law, these individuals are not prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms. Some might say “well, stalking is a serious crime” – and that is true in some instances. The fact is that the code section 39-17-315 actually creates 4 stalking classifications and 3 of those are classified as felonies whereas 1 of them is a non-violent misdemeanor. The felony stalking convictions were covered by the original bill in subsection (a)(1)(C). What the original bill did not do is terminate Second Amendment rights based on a non-violent misdemeanor. The amendment goes to far by creating a precedent for destroying Second Amendment rights based on a non-violent misdemeanor.
The next provision concerns DUI convictions. Current law does not prohibit someone from purchasing or possessing firearms based on a DUI conviction (unless its a felony DUI conviction in this or another state). Current law does limit the ability of some individuals to get a handgun permit if they have 2 or more DUIs in the last 10 years AND one of those is in the last 5 years. The amendment goes much further. It applies to 2 or more DUI’s in the last 10 years OR 1 or more in the last 5. Also, the amendment does not stop at whether the person could get a handgun permit – it makes the individual a prohibited person who cannot purchase or possess firearms during the period of time (5 or 10 years) that is applicable. Also, this provision could easily cause individuals who are visiting Tennessee and who have handgun permits from their home states subject to criminal prosecution if they come to Tennessee and happen to have a DUI conviction in the scope of the amendment’s language.
The third provision that creates a concern is the language about mental health prohibitions and makes individuals with those histories prohibited from purchasing or possessing firearms. First, this is an issue already covered in federal law but federal law has a “safety” valve. Under federal law, the 2008 NICS Improvement Act, someone with a mental health disqualification who has a 3 year history of full recovery, based on a doctor’s assessment, can petition a court to have their Second Amendment rights restored. Because federal law also provides federal funding for mental health programs to states that implement state level procedures, Tennessee created state relief in 4 statutes several years ago. The problem here is that the amendment did not reference those relief of disability procedures in subsection (b).
As noted above, TFA strongly supported the original bill. TFA continues to support the REAL constitutional carry impact of even the amended bill. However, TFA realizes that the amendment goes much further than current law in terms of creating new classes of individuals who are denied their Second Amendment protected rights by government action.
Most of the GOP members who have voted for this probably did not intend this consequence or those members may read the amendment language differently. While we have time, let’s make sure everyone clearly understands the risks created by the amendment’s language. The official legislative record needs to be clear on what this language is intended to do and that this is the knowing wilful intent of those legislators who are voting for it.
Clearly, we are still early in the process and fortunately this concern is something that can be easily addressed and resolved by a “friendly” amendment if taking away Second Amendment protected rights was not the intent. If this is an unintended consequence, it can be addressed and clarified now. There is time to address this concern in the Senate and the additional House hearings. Let’s encourage the elected House and Senate members to carefully look at the amendment’s language and to support a friendly amendment.
Sorry, comments are closed for this post.