Tennessee Red Flag Laws

The Headline

Tennessee has no Extreme Risk Protection Order (ERPO), Risk Protection Order, or "red flag" statute. No court in Tennessee can enter an order under a "risk" theory that strips a person of firearm possession outside an underlying criminal charge, a domestic-violence order of protection, or a mental-health commitment. There is no petition form, no civil ERPO procedure, and no Tennessee statute that lets a family member, a co-worker, a clinician, or a law enforcement officer ask a judge to remove firearms from someone in crisis on a stand-alone risk-assessment basis.

Tennessee has gone further than most non-adopting states. In 2024 the General Assembly affirmatively preempted the entire field. Tenn. Code Sec. 39-17-1329, added by Public Chapter 1062 (SB 2763 / HB 2035, signed by Gov. Bill Lee on May 28, 2024 and effective the same day), provides that "the general assembly preempts the entire field of legislation regarding extreme risk protection orders to the exclusion of all county, city, town, municipality, or metropolitan government law, ordinances, resolutions, enactments, or regulation." Local governments may not enact red flag ordinances. Local governments are also prohibited from accepting a grant or other source of funding for the purpose of implementing an ERPO against a Tennessee resident. Sec. 39-17-1329(c).

Two things follow from that:

• No Tennessee court can issue an ERPO. The state has not enacted a statewide ERPO procedure. Sec. 39-17-1329 only defines "extreme risk protection order" and locks the field at the state level. It does not authorize one.
• No Memphis, Nashville, Knoxville, or Chattanooga ERPO is enforceable. A Tennessee city or county that adopted a red flag ordinance, or a charter amendment (as the City of Memphis did via Referendum Ordinance No. 5908 in November 2024), cannot lawfully enforce it against a Tennessee resident. Sec. 39-17-1329(b).

For a Tennessee carrier or instructor, the practical takeaway is short. The familiar prohibitors at Tenn. Code Sec. 39-17-1307 (felons, certain misdemeanants, persons subject to qualifying orders of protection, persons adjudicated mentally defective or involuntarily committed) and the federal prohibitors at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) still apply. But no Tennessee court will issue an ERPO against you, and no Tennessee local government can issue one either.

What "Red Flag" Means (Reference Background)

A red flag law, or ERPO, is a civil court mechanism that temporarily bars an individual from firearm possession and compels surrender of any firearms in their custody on a finding that the person poses a significant risk to themselves or others. In states that have adopted them, ERPOs share a common structure:

• A petitioner (typically a law enforcement officer or a family or household member; some states also let healthcare providers, educators, dating partners, or co-workers petition) files a civil petition in court.
• The court can issue a temporary ex parte order, typically 7 to 21 days long, on a showing of probable cause or significant risk.
• A noticed hearing follows, usually within 14 days, where the court applies a "clear and convincing evidence" standard. If the standard is met, the court issues a final order, typically lasting 6 months to 12 months, renewable.
• During the order, the respondent must surrender firearms and may not purchase, possess, or receive any firearm or ammunition.
• An active qualifying order may trigger federal firearm prohibition or be reported to NICS as a state prohibitor.

That structure does not exist in Tennessee. The closest legislative attempts (described below) failed.

Tennessee Legislative History

Tennessee's red flag debate has cycled three times: pre-Covenant attempts that died in committee, the 2023 special session triggered by the Covenant School shooting, and the 2024 preemption that codified the state's non-adoption.

Pre-Covenant attempts (2021-2022)

Two ERPO-style bills were filed in the 112th General Assembly and both died in subcommittee. SB 0939 / HB 1292 (introduced February 2021) would have allowed a family member, household member, intimate partner, or law enforcement officer to petition for an emergency protection order on a finding that the respondent posed an imminent risk if allowed to possess or purchase a firearm. SB 0412 / HB 1588 (introduced February 2021) followed the more familiar ERPO template: a court could issue an extreme risk protection order on clear and convincing evidence of significant risk, with law enforcement officers or family / household members as authorized petitioners. The House versions of both bill packages failed in the Children & Family Affairs Subcommittee of the Civil Justice Committee in 2021 and 2022. The Senate versions stalled in the Senate Judiciary Committee.

Covenant School and the 2023 special session

On March 27, 2023, six people, three of them nine-year-old children, were killed in a shooting at The Covenant School in Nashville. Gov. Bill Lee, who had a personal connection to one of the adult victims, publicly called for a "temporary mental health order of protection." Per the Governor's office, that proposal was framed as narrower than a full ERPO and would have given gun owners a hearing within three to five days of a petition and a 48-hour surrender window if the court issued an order.

Lee convened a special legislative session in August 2023 to take up gun safety and mental health legislation. The General Assembly did not enact an ERPO or any "temporary mental health order of protection" during the special session. Per WPLN, the Tennessean, and WKRN reporting, the Republican supermajority publicly stated it would not support legislation resembling a red flag law, and the proposal was never formally presented during the session. The special session produced other measures (a school safety appropriation, free firearm-lock distribution under Tenn. Code Sec. 39-17-1328, and a public safe-storage campaign), but it did not produce an ERPO.

2024 preemption (the operative law)

In the 2024 regular session, the General Assembly went the opposite direction. HB 2035 / SB 2763, sponsored by Rep. Jody Barrett (R-Dickson) and codified as Public Chapter 1062, preempted local ERPO ordinances and was signed by Gov. Lee on May 28, 2024 with immediate effect. The bill was codified as Tenn. Code Sec. 39-17-1329 - Extreme risk protection orders - Preemption of existing laws - Exceptions.

Per the statute:

• Subsection (a) defines "extreme risk protection order" as an executive order or a written order or warrant issued by a judge, magistrate, or other judicial officer with the primary purpose of reducing the risk of firearm-related death or injury by prohibiting a named individual from having custody or control of a firearm or requiring the surrender of a firearm by a named individual. The definition excludes orders of protection issued under Title 36, Chapter 3, Part 6 (domestic-abuse orders of protection).
• Subsection (b) preempts the entire field of legislation regarding ERPOs to the exclusion of all county, city, town, municipality, or metropolitan government law, ordinances, resolutions, enactments, or regulation, "except as otherwise provided by state law."
• Subsection (c) prohibits a political subdivision of Tennessee from accepting a grant or other funding source for the purpose of implementing an ordinance, rule, executive order, judicial order, or judicial finding that would enforce an ERPO against a Tennessee resident.

The "except as otherwise provided by state law" clause in subsection (b) preserves room for the General Assembly to enact a statewide ERPO in the future. It does not authorize local enforcement of one in the meantime.

The bill's House sponsor described the policy choice on the floor: "If we allow every city, every county, every subdivision of the state to adopt their own idea of what they think is the best ex parte extreme risk protection order, we're going to have people who don't know what the law is if they pass the state line or they pass the city limit line." The Governor framed it as preserving room for a "unified, statewide solution."

2025-2026 sessions

ERPO bills continue to be filed and continue to fail. In the 114th General Assembly, HB 1222 / SB 1131 (the emergency-protection-order package) and HB 1390 / SB 1350 (the ERPO package, the latter also adding storage and waiting-period provisions) were introduced. HB 1222 failed in the Criminal Justice Subcommittee of the Judiciary Committee on April 1, 2025. HB 1390 failed for lack of a second in the Civil Justice Subcommittee on March 18, 2026. The Senate companions sit in general subcommittee or judiciary subcommittee without floor action. As of the build date of this guide, no ERPO bill has reached the Governor's desk.

For practical purposes, instructors should treat the issue as settled for the current cycle. No Tennessee ERPO statute exists, and the 2024 preemption (Sec. 39-17-1329) actively forecloses local-government workarounds.

What This Means Practically

Because Tennessee has no red flag statute, and because Sec. 39-17-1329 affirmatively preempts local ones:

• A concerned family member cannot petition a Tennessee court to remove firearms from a relative they believe is dangerous, on a stand-alone risk theory. There is no petition form, no hearing procedure, and no order the court can enter under an ERPO theory. They can pursue an order of protection under Title 36, Chapter 3, Part 6 if the conduct qualifies as domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault. That is not an ERPO and is described below.
• Law enforcement responding to a person in crisis cannot apply for an ERPO. Officers can rely on existing tools: arrest for a charged offense, emergency commitment under Tenn. Code Sec. 33-6-401 et seq., or, in domestic-violence contexts, an order of protection under Title 36, Chapter 3, Part 6.
• A Memphis, Nashville, or Chattanooga local ordinance is unenforceable. The City of Memphis passed Referendum Ordinance No. 5908 in November 2024 amending its charter to authorize ERPO-style relief through a city court. Per Sec. 39-17-1329(b), that charter amendment cannot be enforced. The Tennessee Lookout reported in February 2025 that the Memphis City Council adopted measures by ordinance after the referendum but "they aren't expected to take effect unless state laws change."
• An out-of-state ERPO follows the carrier into Tennessee only to the extent federal law operates. An ERPO issued by, for example, a California or New York court does not become enforceable as a Tennessee state-court order. But if the order qualifies as a federal § 922(g)(8) "qualifying protective order" between intimate partners, federal possession prohibitions can attach to a person now residing in Tennessee. This is a topic for counsel.

Adjacent Mechanisms (Not Red Flag)

Several Tennessee procedures can produce firearm-removal effects in narrow circumstances. None of them is a red flag law, and an instructor should not describe them as substitutes. They are listed here so students understand the actual landscape.

Order of protection under Title 36, Chapter 3, Part 6

Tennessee's order-of-protection statute (Title 36, Chapter 3, Part 6) is the in-state proceeding most commonly confused with an ERPO. The petitioner must qualify as a "domestic abuse victim," a stalking victim, or a sexual-assault victim under the statute. The court can enter an ex parte order on a sworn petition and a noticed final order after hearing. A respondent subject to a qualifying order of protection is barred from firearm possession by federal law 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) and may be required to surrender firearms under the state procedure. Sec. 39-17-1329(a)(2) expressly excludes Title 36, Chapter 3, Part 6 orders of protection from the ERPO definition. They are a separate tool with a domestic-relationship trigger.

ProPublica has documented that Tennessee's order-of-protection surrender mechanism allows a respondent to transfer firearms to a "third party" (a friend or relative) rather than to law enforcement. That third-party dispossession provision is statutory, controversial, and unique among gun-removal regimes. It is also outside the scope of ERPO law.

Emergency mental health commitment under Title 33

Tennessee's mental health and substance abuse code (Title 33) governs involuntary mental health treatment. Sec. 33-6-401 et seq. authorizes emergency commitment when a person poses an immediate substantial likelihood of serious harm to self or others. A formal involuntary commitment to a mental institution, or an adjudication as mentally defective, triggers the federal firearm prohibitor at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4). The state-law commitment is also reflected in Tenn. Code Sec. 39-17-1316 (sale of firearms restrictions) and the firearm-eligibility framework. This is not a tailored firearm-removal tool. It is a clinical commitment proceeding with a collateral federal firearm consequence.

Pretrial bond conditions

In any pending criminal case, a Tennessee judge may impose bond conditions, including a no-firearms condition. This is routine in domestic-violence, stalking, and assault cases. It is a court order in an existing criminal matter, not an ERPO.

Federal prohibitors after a state record

Independent of any state mechanism, the federal prohibitors at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g) attach automatically based on certain records. The two most likely to come up in a red-flag-adjacent conversation are § 922(g)(4) (adjudicated mentally defective or committed to a mental institution) and § 922(g)(8) (subject to a qualifying intimate-partner protective order). § 922(g)(9) (Lautenberg amendment, misdemeanor crime of domestic violence) also reaches Tennessee misdemeanants. For the full prohibitor list, see RESTRICTIONS.

Sec. 39-17-1365 temporary handgun carry permit for OP petitioners

Tennessee runs the protective-order analysis in two directions. A person who petitions for and is granted an order of protection under Title 36, Chapter 3, Part 6 may apply for a temporary handgun carry permit under Tenn. Code Sec. 39-17-1365 within 21 calendar days of the order. That permit, available only to OP petitioners (not respondents), reflects the legislature's choice to give victims an expedited path to carry while the order is in effect. It is the inverse of the ERPO model: rather than disarming a respondent on a risk finding, it provides an accelerated permit to a person who has obtained a court finding of domestic abuse, stalking, or sexual assault against them.

Misinformation Watch

Two pieces of consumer-facing content in the source archive misstate Tennessee's status. Instructors should correct both.

• One firearm-safety blog (gun-safety.com) asserts that "Tennessee has enacted Extreme Risk Protective Order (ERPO) laws, allowing law enforcement and family members to petition courts for a temporary removal of firearms." That is incorrect. Tennessee has not enacted any ERPO procedure. The Giffords Law Center page on Tennessee, last updated December 31, 2023, states the accurate position: "Tennessee has no extreme risk protection order law." The USCCA Tennessee page also states accurately: "Does Tennessee have a red flag law? No."
• A 2021 U.S. LawShield update remains correct in substance but is dated: it accurately reported that previous Tennessee ERPO attempts had died in the legislature. Read that update alongside the 2023 special-session outcome and the 2024 preemption (Sec. 39-17-1329). The trajectory has only moved further away from adoption.

What a Tennessee Carrier Should Do

1. Treat the absence of a Tennessee ERPO as a current-state fact, not a planning assumption. Future legislatures may enact one. Future Sec. 39-17-1329(b) "except as otherwise provided by state law" carve-outs are possible. Track HB- and SB-numbered proposals in each session if you teach this topic.
2. Do not conflate an ERPO with an order of protection. They serve different purposes, have different triggers, and live in different chapters. A student who hears "you can take her guns" should be redirected to the actual procedure (an order of protection under Title 36, Chapter 3, Part 6; criminal-case bond conditions; or a Title 33 commitment) that applies to their situation.
3. Do not assume a Memphis or other local ordinance is enforceable. Local ERPO-style provisions are preempted under Sec. 39-17-1329(b). If a city issues a "red flag" notice against you on the strength of a local charter amendment, document the encounter and contact counsel; the order is not lawful state action.
4. If you are advising someone in crisis, the operative resources are 988 (Suicide and Crisis Lifeline), local crisis intervention teams, and emergency-room mental-health screening. None of these requires a court order. They are also not red flag tools and should not be marketed as such.
5. If you have been served with an out-of-state ERPO and now reside in Tennessee, the order's enforceability turns on full-faith-and-credit principles, the order's qualifying status under 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8), and any federal NICS-reportable record. This is a topic for counsel. The operative federal possession prohibition can attach even though Tennessee has no parallel statute.

Cross-References

• RESTRICTIONS for the full list of Tennessee and federal prohibited persons under Sec. 39-17-1307 and 18 U.S.C. § 922(g).
• PROHIBITED_PLACES for where firearm carry is barred independent of any ERPO analysis.
• CONSTITUTIONAL_CARRY for the Sec. 39-17-1307(g) permitless-carry exception.
• PERMIT_BASICS for the enhanced and concealed permit frameworks (Sec. 39-17-1351 and Sec. 39-17-1366).

Statute Quick Reference

<!-- federal-context-block:added-2026-05-20 -->

Federal context

United States v. Rahimi (2024). In United States v. Rahimi, 602 U.S. ___ (2024), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the federal firearm prohibition at 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(8) for persons subject to a qualifying domestic-violence restraining order, holding the federal disability survives the historical-tradition test of N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022). Rahimi is the controlling SCOTUS authority on the constitutionality of federal firearm disabilities tied to domestic-violence findings; it bears on any state-level red-flag / ERPO analysis to the extent those frameworks borrow federal § 922(g)(8) prohibitor mechanics.