AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 36, Chapter 3, Part 6, relative to domestic violence.
Summary
SB1244 amends Tennessee’s domestic violence protective order law to add a new requirement when a respondent dispossesses firearms by transferring them to a third party. Under the bill, the respondent must identify the third party by name and provide the physical address where the firearms are stored. The third party must also sign the affidavit of firearms dispossession form to acknowledge receipt of the firearms.
The bill is narrowly focused on the firearm-dispossession process in domestic violence cases. It does not change who may be ordered to surrender firearms or the underlying domestic violence protections, but it adds documentation and verification requirements intended to improve accountability and traceability when firearms are transferred out of the respondent’s possession.
Impact
The bill would amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 36-3-625(f), within the domestic violence protective order framework. Its practical effect is to impose additional disclosure and signature requirements on respondents who choose to transfer firearms to a lawful third party instead of surrendering them directly, thereby affecting respondents, third-party custodians, and the courts or officials administering the affidavit process.
Sentiment
No committee transcripts or recorded votes were provided, so there is no direct evidence of debate or opposition in the available record. Based on the text alone, the bill appears procedural and administrative rather than controversial, with an apparent policy goal of strengthening enforcement and recordkeeping in domestic violence firearm dispossession cases.
Contention
The main potential point of contention is the added burden on respondents and third parties, including the requirement to disclose the third party’s name and physical address and obtain a signature acknowledging receipt. Supporters would likely view these requirements as necessary to prevent evasion and improve enforcement, while critics might argue they create privacy concerns or additional administrative hurdles for lawful firearm transfers.