Tennessee House Bill HB1592

Tennessee 2023-2024 Regular Session

• Introduced: 4/20/23
• Refer: 4/20/23
• Refer: 1/10/24

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, relative to reporting the loss of a firearm.

Impact

The passage of HB 1592 would modify existing laws concerning the handling of lost or stolen firearms in Tennessee. By establishing a legal obligation to report such incidents, the bill is expected to facilitate more effective tracking of firearms, potentially aiding in crime prevention efforts. Additionally, the introduction of civil penalties for violations of this reporting requirement, capped at $500 per violation, represents a shift in how firearm accountability is approached within the state.

Summary

House Bill 1592 seeks to amend the Tennessee Code Annotated by introducing a requirement for firearm owners to report the loss or theft of their firearms to law enforcement within a specified timeframe. The bill mandates that owners must notify the relevant agency within twenty-four hours of discovering the loss or theft. This requirement is aimed at improving accountability and reducing the likelihood of firearms being used in illegal activities by ensuring that stolen firearms are reported promptly to authorities.

Sentiment

The sentiment around HB 1592 appears to be mixed. Proponents argue that the bill is a necessary step towards responsible gun ownership and public safety, viewing it as a reasonable requirement for firearm owners. On the other hand, some opponents may contend that additional regulations could impose undue burdens on responsible gun owners, sparking concerns about personal freedoms and the efficacy of such mandates in combating gun violence.

Contention

Notable points of contention surrounding HB 1592 include the efficacy of mandated reporting in actual crime prevention. Critics might question whether civil penalties are enough to encourage compliance among firearm owners or whether reporting requirements might inadvertently penalize individuals who cannot meet the timelines for various legitimate reasons. The discussions highlight a broader debate around balancing public safety needs with individual rights in the context of firearm ownership.