Giving guns to certain mental health patients could become a crime in Tennessee
Rep. Shaundelle Brooks, a Hermitage Democrat, cries after her firearm bill advances from the Tennessee House Criminal Justice Subcommittee on March 26, 2025. The bill is named for her son Akilah Dasilva, who was killed in 2018 in a shooting at a Nashville Waffle House. (Photo: John Partipilo/Tennessee Lookout © 2025)
A crowd of supporters and a few lawmakers erupted in applause and cheers Wednesday as the House Criminal Justice Subcommittee advanced Hermitage Rep. Shaundelle Brooks' bill that would criminalize knowingly giving firearms to someone who recently received inpatient mental health treatment.
Brooks named the bill 'Akilah's Law' in honor of her son Akilah Dasilva, who was one of four killed in a mass shooting at a Nashville Waffle House in 2018.
Brooks, a Democrat, has been lobbying for tighter gun restrictions ever since, and won her seat in the House in November after running on a platform of gun safety advocacy. This is her first session as part of the Tennessee General Assembly.
'Akilah was born here in Nashville, and his life was taken here in Nashville … my son Akilah would still be here with us today if the parents of the perpetrator had followed the instructions of law enforcement, the judicial system and medical professionals who deemed their son unfit to possess a firearm,' Brooks said Wednesday.
'Despite being instructed by each of these oversight agencies to store their firearms safely and not return them to the shooter, the parents knowingly and intentionally disregarded those instructions, broke the law and (were) subsequently held accountable because they resided in another state,' she said.
The House Criminal Justice Subcommittee voted 6-2 to advance the bill to the House's full Judiciary Committee. The bill still faces several hurdles before it can become law.
Brooks said the bill is focused on 'upholding the law and holding those who break the law accountable.'
Travis Reinking of Morton, Illinois was sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole in February 2022 for killing four people and injuring four others at the restaurant with an AR-15 semi-automatic rifle. Illinois State Police had revoked Reinking's firearm owner's identification card prior to the shooting, requiring Reinking to surrender his guns to his father, Jeffrey Reinking.
Jeffrey Reinking returned the guns to his son, including the assault rifle used in the Waffle House shooting — an act that is illegal in the state of Illinois. The elder Reinking was sentenced to 18 months in prison in Illinois in March 2023.
Aldane Dasilva, Brooks' son, was 12 when his brother Akilah was killed. For years, his family pursued accountability in court.
'The law did not fail us,' Dasilva said. 'It held both parties accountable: the father of the person that took my brother from me was held accountable using the same statute — the bill presented here today — by the courts of Illinois, because he broke the law.'
Tennessee had no such pathway for recourse.
In Tennessee, giving firearms to juveniles or people who are intoxicated are misdemeanor crimes. But Tennessee currently has no law against giving firearms to someone who has been committed for mental health evaluation.
Nashville Assistant District Attorney Jan Norman was one of the prosecutors who prosecuted Travis Reinking for the Waffle House homicides. She testified Wednesday that she remembers talking with Brooks about the Illinois law.
'We were talking about that law and what the punishment was, and I said to her these words: 'Shaundelle, it's not enough. It's not. The punishment is not enough. But thank God he gave him those guns in Illinois, because if that would have happened here in Tennessee, I couldn't have done a thing about it. He wouldn't have been punished at all if it happened in Tennessee,'' Norman said.
Brooks' bill would criminalize the sale, offer of sale, delivery or transfer of a firearm to a person while knowing that the person has been a patient of a mental health institution – voluntarily or involuntarily – within the previous five years. It does not apply to people who were voluntarily admitted for treatment solely for alcohol abuse disorder who have no other secondary mental illnesses or substance abuse disorders.
Nashville-area psychiatrist Eric Zabriskie also testified in favor of the bill. He said firearms were the method used in 67% of the 1,245 deaths by suicide recorded in Tennessee in 2022.
'If we continue to do nothing and take no preventative public mental health measures such as this bill, fewer (people) will make it back into (mental health) treatment, and more will go to the morgue and into the ground instead,' Zabriskie said.
Wednesday's committee meeting fell during a time of remembrance and mourning in Nashville.
Thursday marked the second anniversary of a shooting at The Covenant School that killed 9-year-old students Hallie Scruggs, Evelyn Dieckhaus, and William Kinney as well as school headmaster Katherine Koonce, custodian Mike Hill, and substitute teacher Cynthia Peak.
Amid the public outcry for gun law reforms that followed, a 2023 special legislative session of the Tennessee General Assembly called by Gov. Bill Lee ended without the passage of any bills restricting access to guns.
On Tuesday, the Metro Nashville Public Schools Board of Education honored Antioch High School staff for their actions during a January shooting. Solomon Henderson, 17, opened fire in the school's cafeteria, killing 16-year-old Dayana Escalante and injuring another student before taking his own life.
James Shaw Jr., who wrestled the gun away from Travis Reinking and sustained injuries in the Waffle House shooting, also testified Wednesday in favor of Brooks' bill.
3 kids, 3 adults killed in shooting at Nashville private elementary school
'I've just seen the outcome of (a mass shooting), and I've seen how it could fracture families. I've seen the holes it could make. I could see how the mending doesn't happen. And, as well, I've seen myself the diagnoses that I've had, of having PTSD and having things of that nature,' Shaw said.
'I think it's a step in the right way for some of the other mothers that are here from (Covenant) and from Antioch and from the other shootings that we've had recently here in Nashville,' he continued. 'I think this is a step in the right way, so I'm very supportive of her bill, and I think it will help Nashville push forward and for us to just make laws, good laws, about gun safety and practice.'
Reps. Andrew Farmer (R-Sevierville), William Lamberth (R-Portland)), Lowell Russell (R-Vonore), Rick Scarbrough (R-Oak Ridge), Jason Powell (D-Nashville) and Gabby Salinas (D-Memphis) voted in favor of advancing the bill.
Representatives Fred Atchley (R-Sevierville) and Clay Doggett (R-Pulaski) voted in opposition.
SUBSCRIBE: GET THE MORNING HEADLINES DELIVERED TO YOUR INBOX
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
18 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Wants to Make It More Expensive to Sue Over His Policies
(Bloomberg) -- President Donald Trump and his allies are pursuing an alternative strategy to defend against mounting court orders blocking his policies: Raise the financial stakes for those suing the administration. Shuttered NY College Has Alumni Fighting Over Its Future Trump's Military Parade Has Washington Bracing for Tanks and Weaponry NYC Renters Brace for Price Hikes After Broker-Fee Ban Do World's Fairs Still Matter? NY Long Island Rail Service Resumes After Grand Central Fire Republicans want to force people suing the US to post financial guarantees to cover the government's costs if they win a temporary halt to Trump's policies but ultimately lose the case. A measure in the House's 'big, beautiful' tax-and-spending bill would condition a judges' power to hold US officials in contempt for violating their orders to the payment of that security. A new proposed version of the bill announced by Senate Republicans on Thursday removes the contempt language but would broadly restrict judges' discretion to decide how much of a security payment to order from challengers who win initial pauses to Trump's policies, or to waive it altogether. While the legislation faces hurdles, the push to make suing the government more expensive is gaining steam. Critics say it's part of a broader effort to discourage lawsuits against the Trump administration. In addition to the tax bill provision, Republican lawmakers have introduced a plan to require plaintiffs who lose suits against the administration to cover the government's legal costs. Meanwhile, Trump has directed the Justice Department to demand bonds from court challengers when judges temporarily halt his policies. Trump has also targeted law firms over everything from past work for Democratic rivals to their diversity policies. Courts historically haven't required bonds to be put up in lawsuits against the government. In recent cases, the Trump administration's bond requests included $120,000 in litigation over union bargaining and an unspecified amount 'on the high side'' in a fight over billions of dollars in frozen clean technology grants. Judges in those and other cases have denied hefty requests or set smaller amounts, such as $10 or $100 or even $1. 'Having to put that money up is going to prevent people from being able to enforce their rights,' said Eve Hill, a civil rights lawyer who is involved in litigation against the administration over the treatment of transgender people in US prisons and Social Security Administration operations. The Trump administration has faced more than 400 lawsuits over his policies on immigration, government spending and the federal workforce, among other topics, since his inauguration. A Bloomberg analysis in May found that Trump was losing more cases than he was winning. White House spokesperson Taylor Rogers said in a statement that 'activist organizations are abusing litigation to derail the president's agenda' and that it is 'entirely reasonable to demand that irresponsible organizations provide collateral to cover the costs and damages if their litigation wrongly impeded executive action.' Dan Huff, a White House lawyer during Trump's first term, defended the idea but said the language needed fixes, such as clarifying that it only applies to preliminary orders and not all injunctions. Huff, whose op-eds in support of stiffer injunction bonds have circulated among Republicans this year, said that Congress wanted litigants 'to have skin in the game.' Some judges have already found in certain cases that the administration was failing to fully comply with orders. Alexander Reinert, a law professor at Cardozo School of Law, said the timing of Congress taking up such a proposal was 'troubling and perverse.' 'Defy Logic' Some efforts by the Trump administration to curb lawsuits have already paid off. By threatening probes of law firms' hiring practices, the White House struck deals with several firms that effectively ruled out their involvement in cases challenging Trump's policies. Other aspects of the effort have been less successful. Judges have overwhelmingly rebuffed the Justice Department's efforts that plaintiffs put up hefty bonds. A judge who refused to impose a bond in a funding fight wrote that 'it would defy logic' to hold nonprofit organizations 'hostage' for the administration's refusal to pay them. Several judges entered bonds as low as $1 when they stopped the administration from sending Venezuelan migrants out of the country. In a challenge to federal worker layoffs, a judge rejected the government's push for a bond covering salaries and benefits, instead ordering the unions that sued to post $10. The clause in the House tax bill tying contempt power of judges to injunction bonds was the work of Trump loyalists. Representative Andy Biggs, a Republican member of the House Judiciary Committee, pushed to include the provision, Representative Jim Jordan told Bloomberg News. Jordan, who chairs the committee, said Biggs and Representative Harriet Hageman, another Republican, were 'very instrumental in bringing this to the committee's attention.' Biggs' office did not respond to requests for comment. Hageman said in a statement that the measure will 'go a long way in curbing this overreach whereby judges are using their gavels to block policies with which they disagree, regardless of what the law may say.' Liberals have slammed the proposed clause in the tax-and-spending bill as an attack on the judiciary, but it may not be the controversy that dooms it in the Senate. Reconciliation, the process lawmakers are using to pass the bill with only Republican support, requires the entire bill to relate directly to the budget. 'Make It Happen' Several Republicans have expressed skepticism the measure can survive under that process. But, Jordan, the House judiciary chair, said Republican lawmakers will seek an alternative path to pass the measure if it's ruled out in the Senate. 'I'm sure we'll look at other ways to make it happen,' Jordan said. The bond fight stems from an existing federal rule that says judges can enter temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions 'only if' the winning side posts a security that the court 'considers proper.' The bond is to cover 'costs and damages' if they ultimately lose. University of Notre Dame Law School professor Samuel Bray, a proponent of injunction bonds, said courts should account for whether litigants have the ability to pay. Still, he said, defendants should be able to recover some money if a judge's early injunction — a 'prediction' about who will win, he said – isn't borne out. 'If courts routinely grant zero dollars, what they are doing is pricing the effect of a wrongly granted injunction on the government's operations at zero,' Bray said. Courts have interpreted the rule as giving judges discretion to decide what's appropriate, including waiving it, said Cornell Law School Professor Alexandra Lahav. The bond issue usually comes up in business disputes with 'clear monetary costs,' she said, and not in cases against the federal government. 'It's not clear to me what kind of injunction bond would make sense in the context of lawsuits around whether immigrants should have a hearing before they're deported,' Lahav said. 'I'm not really sure how you would price that.' (Updates with Senate proposal in the third paragraph.) American Mid: Hampton Inn's Good-Enough Formula for World Domination The Spying Scandal Rocking the World of HR Software New Grads Join Worst Entry-Level Job Market in Years As Companies Abandon Climate Pledges, Is There a Silver Lining? US Tariffs Threaten to Derail Vietnam's Historic Industrial Boom ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Politico
27 minutes ago
- Politico
The post-Roe fight over data privacy
Hey everyone! I hope you are all having a lovely Pride Month. Thanks for reading Women Rule. We'll be on hiatus next week and back in your inbox on June 27. Reach out and say hello: klong@ and ecordover@ This week I had a chat with Rep. Sara Jacobs on her reintroduction of the My Body, My Data Act. The post-Roe era has elevated a new data privacy fight, as concerns grow over how reproductive and sexual health data is collected and disclosed. But the issue has been front of mind for Rep. Sara Jacobs for years, even prior to the Dobbs decision. The California Democrat reintroduced the My Body, My Data Act on Thursday, which aims to increase protections for those who use apps and sites that collect reproductive and sexual health data, such as period tracking apps. Jacobs points to certain instances where reproductive health data, which is not protected under HIPAA, has been used to investigate and prosecute users in states with strict abortion laws. Jacobs describes the push to protect reproductive and sexual health data as 'the abortion fight of the 21st century.' The bill, which was introduced in 2022 and then reintroduced the following year, would provide consumer protections for users who disclose their reproductive and sexual health data on apps and websites. This includes limiting the data that can be collected to only that which is necessary to provide a certain product or service, and bolstering transparency from companies on how that data is collected, retained and shared. Sens. Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) sponsored the bill's Senate counterpart. The legislation was introduced twice before, first in 2022 and again the following year, but made little headway. And with a Republican-controlled Congress, the bill's reintroduction will likely result in a similar fate. Women Rule spoke with Jacobs on the reintroduction of the bill, which comes on the heels of the three-year anniversary of the Dobbs decision. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. I first wanted to talk a little bit about the bill. I think especially in a post-Roe world, there's growing concern over government tracking on period apps and other apps and sites related to reproductive and sexual health. I first introduced this bill because right after the opposite decision came down when Roe v. Wade was overturned, I started getting all these messages from friends and peers wondering what they should do about their period tracking apps, and I also use a period tracking app, and we started looking into it and there's basically no protections for this kind of reproductive and sexual health data. It's not covered under HIPAA, and so we're already seeing people try to use this data to go after people who are getting abortions and those helping them in states that have criminalized abortion. We know that they want to go after this data, and so I think it's incredibly important that we as Congress do something to protect this very sensitive data. Actually, there was a poll two years ago that showed that 2 in 3 Americans, including 54 percent of Republicans, support Congress making it illegal for apps and search engines to sell their reproductive health data. Why is it important for this bill to pass now? Well, in 2017, even before the overturning of Roe v. Wade, Mississippi police used Google search history to go after someone and alleged that she had an abortion. In 2022, the police used Facebook messages in Nebraska as part of an investigation into an abortion illegal under state law. More recently, a data broker sold cell phone and geolocation data to an anti-abortion political group that then used that information to dispense misinformation about reproductive health to people who had visited 600 abortion clinics in 48 states. And more Americans are turning to online clinics for medication abortions. Young people increasingly use the internet, live online, we are googling questions about medicine, we are using Ubers to get places, right? And all of this data can be misused, and we know the lengths that police and prosecutors will go to to try and intimidate or prosecute people for having abortions. With a Republican controlled Congress, it seems unlikely that the bill will pass, but have you received any support from across the aisle? Unfortunately, while I work in a bipartisan way with a lot of Republicans on data privacy, when it comes to this kind of data, they have been unwilling to engage even though they claim to support data privacy. We're coming up on the three-year anniversary of Roe v. Wade being overturned, and you've mentioned a few examples. Could you talk about how the Dobbs decision has impacted those who use these reproductive and self sexual health tracking apps and sites? Look, especially in states that have criminalized abortion — something like 1 in 3 women live in a state that has criminalized abortion in some way — there is an incredible amount of fear that even if they have a natural miscarriage they could be prosecuted because they Googled something once or that this kind of information can be used against [them] and weaponized against people. I think as we're seeing more and more states and as we know that at the end of the day this Republican Party wants a federal abortion ban, it's more important than ever that we protect people's data. Is there anything in particular about the My Body My Data Act that you would like to highlight? This is the abortion fight of the 21st century, right? Because it's about access and it's about how they're enforcing these really horrible laws. Americans are now becoming more aware of how their data is being used and stored, in part because of DOGE and what Elon Musk is doing. And we know that women are often trying to find the apps and services that claim to safeguard their data, but each individual person shouldn't have to try and figure this out on their own, and it shouldn't be up to companies to do the right thing. This is the exact kind of thing you need the government for, to protect very sensitive health data. And young people intrinsically understand this issue from both sides of the aisle. But part of what's hard is that so many of my colleagues do not understand this. There's just a bit of a mismatch between Congress and the American people on this issue. POLITICO Special Report How Kamala Harris Is Processing the LA Unrest by Melanie Mason for POLITICO: 'Harris has been choosy about when to weigh in publicly on politics since leaving Washington. So her statement on social media this week denouncing President Donald Trump's activation of the National Guard as a 'dangerous escalation' instantly lent itself to frenzied tea leaves reading. … For Harris, it was a natural issue to speak up on for several reasons, according to one of the people familiar with her thinking and granted anonymity to speak freely. First, she's coming at this as a lifelong Californian who came up in law enforcement and has made the rule of law a driving theme of her career. She also empathizes with the protesters, after growing up steeped in the civil rights protests of her childhood and campus anti-apartheid movement of the 1980s.' Trump's DOJ Indicted a Democratic Congresswoman. The Case Could Fall Apart. by Ankush Khardori for POLITICO: 'The decision to proceed with an indictment following the initial charges against the New Jersey Democrat comes at a politically volatile moment — following President Donald Trump's decision to deploy the National Guard and the Marines in response to protests in Los Angeles, and in the midst of ongoing wrangling over the scope and legality of the administration's deportation effort. In recent weeks, that effort has generated heartrending images from courthouse arrests and more admissions of mistaken deportations from the Justice Department. Meanwhile, the administration is moving to deport hundreds of thousands of people who entered the country legally under the last administration.' Phil Murphy Skated to the NJ Governor's Mansion. Mikie Sherrill Might Not Have it So Easy. by Matt Friedman and Madison Fernandez for POLITICO: 'Rep. Mikie Sherrill was the vanguard of the anti-Trump backlash in 2018. Just months after the political unknown declared her Democratic candidacy for Congress and began raising money at a fast clip, the 24-year Republican incumbent bowed out rather than face the first competitive general election of his career. Sherrill easily won what had long been a safe Republican district in a blue wave election that flipped the House. Now, Sherrill stands as Democrats' bulwark against a red tide after winning the party nomination for New Jersey governor Tuesday night.' Number of the Week More on that here. MUST READS Doctors Report the First Pregnancy Using a New AI Procedure by Alice Park for Time Magazine: 'Doctors at Columbia University Fertility Center have reported what they are calling the first pregnancy using a new AI system, in a couple that had been trying to start a family for nearly two decades. The pregnancy was possible due to an advance developed by the Columbia team, led by Dr. Zev Williams, director of the center, to address azoospermia, or a lack of detectable sperm in the ejaculate. Male factors account for about 40 percent of infertility in the U.S., and azoospermia is responsible for about 10 percent of those cases. Until recently, there was little doctors could do to address the lack of sperm needed to fertilize an egg, other than using donor sperm.' Domestic Abusers Could Have Easier Path to Getting Gun Rights Back Under Trump Proposal by Jennifer Gerson for The 19th: 'The Trump administration is proposing a change to how people convicted of crimes can have their gun rights restored, raising concerns over what this means for victims of domestic violence. The Democratic Women's Caucus and the Gun Violence Prevention Task Force of the U.S. House of Representatives sent a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi and Robert Hinchman, senior counsel at the Department of Justice (DOJ), criticizing an interim final rule that would move the responsibility for determining if someone gets their gun rights back from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) to the Office of the Attorney General. While the ATF is part of the DOJ, the letter says the proposal would create 'an apparent lack of an objective, holistic process for making' these decisions.' Senate Democrats File Bill to Prevent Ban on Transgender Military Service by Luis Martinez for ABC News: 'The 'Fit to Serve Act' would prohibit the Defense Department from banning transgender service members from serving in the military. If passed, the law would prevent the DOD from denying access to healthcare on the basis of gender identity, and it would also prohibit the military from forcing service members to serve in their sex assigned at birth. It would also make it illegal for the military to discriminate against service members on the basis of gender identity.' QUOTE OF THE WEEK Read more here. on the move Fortune journalist Emma Hinchliffe was promoted to editor of the Most Powerful Women Daily newsletter at the publication, leading editorial for the 28-year-old franchise. Martina McLennan is now director of policy communications for economic and health policy at the Bipartisan Policy Center. She previously was communications director for Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.). (h/t POLITICO Influence) Cara Duckworth is now SVP of comms at USTelecom – The Broadband Association. She previously was chief corporate comms officer at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. (h/t POLITICO Playbook)
Los Angeles Times
29 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Disorder breaks out at New Jersey immigration detention center
NEWARK, N.J. — Protesters outside a New Jersey federal immigration detention center locked arms and pushed against barricades as vehicles passed through gates, inmates inside relayed word that meals had been delayed, and Newark's mayor cited reports of a possible uprising and escape as disorder broke out at the facility. Much is still unclear about what unfolded at the Delaney Hall facility in Newark, where Immigration and Customs Enforcement opened a 1,000-bed facility this year as part of President Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration. Photos and video from outside the facility Thursday show protesters pushing against the gates amid word that detainees inside were upset about delayed meals. Amy Torres, executive director of New Jersey Alliance for Immigrant Justice, said some officers sprayed pepper spray and tackled and dragged protesters away from the facility. She said some protesters had minor injuries, but no one was hit by the vehicles. An attorney for someone detained at the facility told people inside became violent after meals were delayed. 'It's about the food, and some of the detainees were getting aggressive and it turned violent,' attorney Mustafa Cetin said. 'Based on what he told me it was an outer wall, not very strong, and they were able to push it down.' Attorneys with clients inside Delaney Hall have had calls canceled and have not been able to get inside the facility Friday, according to Araceti Argueta, a spokesperson for the American Friends Service Committee, a nonprofit that represents immigrants. Newark Mayor Ras Baraka, a Democrat who's been critical of Trump's immigration crackdown, early Friday called for an end to this 'chaos and not allow this operation to continue unchecked.' 'We are concerned about reports of what has transpired at Delaney Hall this evening, ranging from withholding food and poor treatment, to uprising and escaped detainees,' he said. It's unclear whether there have been any escapes. In a statement issued Friday, American Friends Service Committee said people inside the facility reported getting small portions of food, with breakfast at 6 a.m., dinner at 10 p.m. and no lunch. Messages seeking comment were left with ICE, the Department of Homeland Security and local police. GEO Group, which owns the facility referred questions to ICE. ICE housed more than 53,000 people nationwide at the end of May, its latest public figures, which is well above its budgeted capacity of about 41,000 and approaching all-time highs. Stephen Miller, the White House deputy chief of staff and chief architect of Trump's immigration policies, said late last month that ICE should make at least 3,000 arrests a day. That would mark a dramatic increase from Jan. 20 to May 19, when the agency made an average of 656 arrests a day. Delaney Hall has been the cite of clashes this year between Democratic officials who say the facility needs more oversight and the administration and those who run the facility. Baraka was arrested May 9, handcuffed and charged with trespassing. The charge was later dropped and Democratic Rep. LaMonica McIver was later charged with assaulting federal officers stemming from a skirmish that happened outside the facility. She has denied the charges said she was doing her job as a lawmaker conducting oversight.
