Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Firearms Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Tennessee committee rejects 'red flag' extreme-risk protection order bill after public testimony
Summary
The House Criminal Justice Committee heard emotional testimony in favor of an extreme-risk protection order bill (HB 12-22) but voted 7-2 against sending it to full judiciary, ending the measure in committee.
Representative Johnson, the bill sponsor, described House Bill 12-22 as an ``extreme risk protection order'' (red flag) proposal to allow temporary removal of firearms from people judged to pose a danger to themselves or others. She framed the bill as a tool to prevent mass shootings and suicides while including due-process protections such as court hearings and the ability to petition to have firearms returned.
The bill drew an extended exchange among committee members about the bill's ex parte provisions. Leader Lambert said his primary objection was procedural: he opposed ex parte hearings that could remove property or liberty without an in-person opportunity to respond. Representative Johnson and other supporters said the bill included post-seizure hearings — the affected person could return within 30 days and as often as needed to seek return of firearms — and emphasized the bill's focus on public safety.
The committee heard in-person testimony from two supporters. Jason Sparks of Moms Demand Action said HB 12-22 would give families and law enforcement a tool to act when a person exhibits warning signs; he cited national studies and state poll numbers that he said indicate broad public support and potential lives saved. No proponent testimony opposing the bill was placed on the record in committee.
After questions and discussion the committee voted on whether to send HB 12-22 to full judiciary. The clerk reported the tally as 2 ayes and 7 nays, and the measure failed in committee.
The vote ended further committee consideration of HB 12-22. The discussion highlighted continuing divisions in the committee over balancing immediate safety tools against procedural protections for people subject to extreme-risk orders.
