Tennessee House Bill HB0752

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/3/25
• Refer: 2/6/25
• Refer: 2/19/25
• Refer: 2/25/25
• Engrossed: 3/3/25
• Enrolled: 3/4/25
• Passed: 3/26/25
• Chaptered: 3/31/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 70, Chapter 1, Part 5 and Section 70-2-201, relative to lifetime sportsman licenses for adopted children.

Summary

HB0752 amends Tennessee’s wildlife and sportsman licensing law to remove a timing restriction tied to adopted children’s eligibility for a lifetime sportsman license. Specifically, the bill deletes the phrase “within thirty-six (36) months immediately” from Tennessee Code Annotated § 70-2-201(h)(1), which broadens the window in which an adopted child may qualify for the lifetime license benefit. The bill is narrow in scope and does not create a new licensing program; instead, it adjusts an existing eligibility requirement in Title 70 governing hunting and fishing-related licenses. By removing the 36-month limitation, the act makes the lifetime sportsman license provision more accessible to adopted children and their families, and it takes effect immediately upon becoming law.

Impact

The bill changes Tennessee Code Annotated § 70-2-201 by eliminating a specific 36-month deadline associated with lifetime sportsman licenses for adopted children. This affects the administration of state-issued lifetime sportsman licenses by expanding eligibility and reducing a statutory barrier that previously limited when an adoption had to occur or be recognized for purposes of the license. The practical impact is on adopted children, adoptive parents, and the Tennessee wildlife licensing system.

Sentiment

The bill appears to have been received very favorably and without controversy. It passed the House Agriculture and Natural Resources Subcommittee 7-0, the full House Agriculture and Natural Resources Committee 13-0, and then passed the House on the consent calendar by a vote of 89-0. The unanimous votes suggest broad bipartisan support and a perception that the measure is a straightforward fairness or access fix for adopted children.

Contention

No notable opposition or substantive contention is reflected in the available committee or floor records. The bill’s narrow technical amendment and unanimous votes indicate that any discussion likely centered on clarifying or expanding eligibility rather than on broader policy disagreement. The absence of recorded dissent suggests the main point of agreement was that adopted children should not be disadvantaged by a rigid timing requirement.