AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, relative to the discharge of a firearm.
SB2379 creates a new criminal offense for recklessly discharging a firearm into the air, the ground, a body of water, or an object near the shooter when other people are or may be present. The bill names this the “Reckless Bullet Prevention Act” and classifies a violation as a Class A misdemeanor. It is aimed at preventing dangerous celebratory or careless gunfire that can endanger bystanders.
The bill also lists several exceptions. It would not apply to law enforcement officers, certain military personnel acting in official duties, animal control and wildlife officers, lawful hunting and nuisance wildlife control, shooting ranges, or the defense of self, another person, or a domestic animal against an animal attack when deadly force is reasonably necessary. In addition, it amends Tennessee’s handgun safety course requirements so that, beginning July 1, 2026, all department-approved handgun safety courses must include instruction on the new offense.
SB2379 would add a new section to Tennessee Code Annotated Title 39, Chapter 17, Part 13, creating a statewide misdemeanor offense for reckless firearm discharge in places where people are or may be present. It would also require handgun safety training curricula approved by the state to cover the new law starting July 1, 2026. The bill affects gun owners, instructors, law enforcement, hunters, wildlife officers, and shooting ranges by defining prohibited conduct and specifying lawful exceptions.
Based on the bill text and the absence of recorded committee debate or votes, the measure appears to be framed as a public-safety bill with a straightforward enforcement purpose. Its title and structure suggest support for reducing accidental or celebratory gunfire incidents, while preserving existing lawful uses of firearms. No formal opposition or recorded controversy is available in the provided materials.
The main points of potential contention are the breadth of the new offense and how “recklessly” and “in proximity” would be applied in practice, especially in rural areas, hunting contexts, or situations involving animal defense. Gun rights advocates could be concerned about criminalizing conduct that may be viewed as negligent but not intentionally harmful, while supporters are likely to emphasize bystander safety and the need to deter stray bullets. The bill’s exceptions for hunting, ranges, official duties, and animal defense appear designed to limit those concerns.