Tennessee House Bill HB1285

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/6/25
• Refer: 2/12/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 29, Chapter 16; Title 29, Chapter 17; Title 54 and Title 58, Chapter 2, relative to the use of eminent domain during declared emergencies.

Summary

HB1285 amends Tennessee’s emergency management law to limit how the governor may use eminent domain and related emergency powers during a declared emergency. The bill specifically states that, while the governor may commandeer or use private property when necessary to respond to an emergency and subject to compensation requirements, that authority does not extend to firearms, ammunition, or firearm components. It also adds a new restriction that the power of eminent domain over real property may not be used in any expedited manner. In practical terms, the bill narrows the state’s emergency authority by carving out certain gun-related property from seizure or commandeering and by preventing fast-tracked eminent domain actions against real property during emergencies. The measure is framed as an amendment to Tennessee Code Annotated provisions governing emergency powers and eminent domain, and it would take effect immediately upon becoming law.

Impact

The bill would amend Tennessee Code Annotated Section 58-2-107(e)(4), altering the scope of the governor’s emergency powers under the state’s emergency management framework. It would preserve the state’s ability to commandeer private property for emergency response, but expressly exclude firearms, ammunition, and firearm components from the definition of property that may be commandeered. It would also prohibit the use of expedited eminent domain procedures for real property during declared emergencies, affecting how state and local authorities could acquire property in urgent situations.

Sentiment

Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes in the provided materials, the overall sentiment appears to be supportive of limiting government power during emergencies, especially with respect to property rights and firearms. The bill’s framing suggests a pro-property-rights and pro-Second Amendment posture. No contrary arguments or recorded opposition are available in the provided context.

Contention

The main points of contention likely concern the balance between emergency response authority and individual property rights. Supporters would likely favor the explicit protection for firearms, ammunition, and firearm components, as well as the ban on expedited eminent domain, viewing both as safeguards against government overreach. Opponents, if any, would likely argue that the restrictions could reduce the state’s flexibility to respond quickly and effectively in emergencies, particularly where rapid property acquisition or use is needed for public safety or disaster response.