Tennessee House Bill HB2528

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/3/26
• Refer: 2/5/26
• Refer: 3/11/26
• Refer: 3/18/26
• Refer: 3/25/26
• Refer: 3/31/26
• Chaptered: 5/5/26
• Passed: 5/5/26

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 62, Chapter 35, relative to private security.

Summary

HB2528 revises Tennessee’s private security licensing and registration laws in Title 62, Chapter 35. The bill expands and clarifies who is exempt from licensing or registration, including certain reserve, part-time, and auxiliary officers or deputies who meet specified training standards. It also updates eligibility rules for security guards and officers by adding disqualifiers tied to abuse registries, firearm prohibitions, stalking, and other listed offenses, and it requires prompt notice to the commissioner and employers when arrests, citations, convictions, or firearm-related restrictions occur. The bill also changes training and renewal requirements for armed and unarmed security personnel. It creates alternative pathways for applicants who have completed equivalent recent training, exempts sworn peace officers and certain correctional officers or jailers from some training requirements, and allows the commissioner to review and approve outside training or continuing education for credit. In addition, it sets a two-year expiration for proprietary security organization registrations and revises rules governing how private security personnel may present themselves and interact with law enforcement-related uniforms or appearances.

Impact

The bill amends multiple provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated Title 62, Chapter 35, affecting licensing, registration, training, reporting, and conduct standards for private security guards/officers, armed security personnel, proprietary security organizations, and certain public safety officers who perform security work. It narrows some regulatory burdens through exemptions and equivalent-training provisions while strengthening oversight through expanded disqualification criteria and mandatory reporting obligations. It also limits local government authority to impose additional permits, fees, or bonds on regulated security businesses, while preserving business tax authority and certain street patrol regulations.

Sentiment

The available voting history suggests broad support for the measure, with unanimous or near-unanimous approval in several committees and only limited opposition in the House Commerce Committee. The bill appears to have been viewed as a technical but substantive update to private security regulation, balancing workforce flexibility with public-safety safeguards. No committee transcript is available, so sentiment is inferred primarily from the strong committee vote margins and the bill’s successful progression through the House process.

Contention

The main points of contention likely center on the scope of exemptions and the new disqualifying standards. Supporters appear to favor streamlined licensing for reserve, part-time, auxiliary, sworn, and correctional officers with comparable training, while opponents may be concerned about reduced oversight or the use of equivalent training instead of uniform state requirements. Another possible area of debate is the bill’s expanded reporting duties and firearm-related restrictions for armed security personnel, as well as the limits it places on local governments’ ability to add licensing or permitting requirements.