The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Kip Capley (R-Summertown) and Sen. Joey Hensley (R-Hohenwald) would allow people to use deadly force to protect their property if they believed they had no other option and there was a serious threat to human safety.
“Right now under current law, if someone is breaking into your property, if they’re stealing from you, if they’re destroying what you’ve worked your entire life to build, you’re expected to wait,” Capley said. “You’re expected to hesitate. You’re expected to second-guess and take a calculated risk at defending what’s yours.”
Democrats pushed back on the legislation.
“The reason we were taught you don’t kill people over property is because they are not putting at risk an innocent human life,” Rep. Justin Pearson (D-Memphis) said. “What this legislation seems to be doing is lowering that threshold significantly and substantially, and the department is going to have to reteach in future classes for those who get their lifetime permit that you can now kill people over property, and I don’t think that is right.”
— Tori Gessner in Tennessee lawmakers pass bill allowing deadly force to defend property
Hooray for Tennessee and good luck getting this legislation in the law books.
If bad guys were not doing bad things:
Breaking and entering uninvited(like someone is going to invite a person to break and enter)
Destroying someone else’s property
Stealing someone else’s property
Being aggressive
Carrying weapons
Commit: rape, battery, murder
Note: Elders like me can’t run, therefore things others than firearms present a grave danger.
If the bad guys were not a participant in those things above and others, then they would be conducting their lives as honorable responsible citizens. But some play deadly games and suffer the consequences and all the while the choice is theirs, i. e., the bad guys.
This could be dangerous because people are stupid. Someone might get shot just for trespassing if a property owner thinks they’re stealing. If your response is “then don’t trespass,” you’ve probably lived a very sheltered life.
Hey Dude: “The legislation, sponsored by Rep. Kip Capley (R-Summertown) and Sen. Joey Hensley (R-Hohenwald) would allow people to use deadly force to protect their property if they believed they had no other option and there was a serious threat to human safety.”
The wording is odd. If there’s “a serious threat to human safety,” you can already use your firearm. I’m not sure about this.
The article gave an example of potentially losing millions, but in reality this will be used to protect an $80 grill. That’s not justice or remotely necessary.
I need more information, but based on the linked article this doesn’t sound great, IMO. I’ve seen too much stupidity. People don’t exercise good judgment when emotion is involved.
comment is awaiting moderation.
that’s not what the law would do, not allow someone to shoot someone for trespassing if they thought they were stealing.
There still has to be ‘no other option’ of preventing the crime AND a serious threat to human safety. Its basically the same standard we have now for self defense (less stand your ground), only applied to include property.
“AND a serious threat to human safety.” Then what’s the point? If the threat exists, then you don’t need this law. Something’s off here.
Probably to prevent litigious abuses of defenders by blue-city prosecutors.
Bad laws make for bad actors which in turn make for more bad laws in an effort to hinder those bad actors which makes for ever more bad laws….. and on and on and on.
because the theft of property can also pose a serious threat to human safety.
You are suggesting that homeowners/property owners are actually expected to wait and see just what other laws ie. committing home invasions/rape/child abduction/murder offenders such as trespassers are willing to break, are you nuts? In the era of increased response times especially in rural areas where 20 minutes until police arrive is considered “normal” death of a homeowner or their loved ones is inevitable.
As I said, my main concern is someone getting shot for trespassing. In TN, you can already shoot someone if: a) they’re in your home or trying to get into your home, and b) they don’t “belong” there (not a relative, social worker, etc.).
What you’re saying is that you need to hurry up and shoot anyone who dares to step into your yard before waiting around to see if they’re going to commit a crime. And you’re calling me nuts? You’re the kind of person I was talking about. You’re like the guy who opened fire on those kids turning their car around in someone’s driveway.
“The reason we were taught you don’t kill people over property is because they are not putting at risk an innocent human life,”
No, that’s not true.
It was because the law limited defense with deadly force to cases of ‘imminent’ risk of serious harm or death to the victim.
2A SHOWDOWN SET: Virginia Police vs Governor! This Is Getting CRAZY!
ht* tps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kmhU7vCJObo
Why are our tax dollars paying for this?: Calls Grow For House To End Tax Funding For Transing Kids After Collins, Murkowski Kill Senate Effort.
“Pressure is on the GOP-controlled House of Representatives to act after Republican Sens. Susan Collins and Lisa Murkowski voted with Democrats in the latest overnight ‘vote-a-rama’ to shoot down a reconciliation bill amendment that would cut off Planned Parenthood’s flow of Medicaid taxpayer dollars.
Despite its history of … flouting federal law and wasting tax dollars, Planned Parenthood raked in $832 million in taxpayer funds from hard-working Americans in the 2024-2025 fiscal year. Not only is the abortion giant killing more babies than ever, but it’s also dispensing castrating drugs to confused minors.
…”
ht* tps://thefederalist.com/2026/04/24/calls-grow-for-house-to-end-tax-funding-for-transing-kids-after-collins-murkowski-kill-senate-effort/
So here we go. You want to defund the police, fine. I’ve been saying for years now. Yeah go ahead defund the police. Libertarians liberals and leftists, none of these people want to face the consequences for making such a statement. They do not believe in the concept of private property rights.
They support raising a misdemeanor charge of theft up to $950. So the private poverty of the working class means nothing to them.
Individual private property, and the Bill of Rights, is what separated the United States, from every other country on planet earth. When the nation was founded.
They support the government killing someone.
In order to protect a police car from being stolen. But they will call the police on a property owner. Who tries to protect the only car they have from being stolen.
They cheer when a police station is burned to the ground. They support the police being ordered to stand down and do nothing. As a city is burned to the ground and innocent people are murdered where they stand.
I trust my fellow american property owner. I have faith that this law will not be abused.
Just as I have faith in my fellow american gun owners. That they will not abuse their second amendment civil rights.
Never forget Joe Horne in Texas.
And if you abuse your rights you get prosecuted. As you always have been.
Btw
The Liberals who move to Tennessee will be k-il-le-d. If they bring there nasty habits with them.
People have always been saying the South is different.
Despite being framed as a ‘protection of property’ measure, the statute, as amended in 2026, expressly prohibits the use of deadly force unless there is an imminent threat of death, serious bodily injury, or grave sexual abuse to a human being, or on circumstances where lesser force would expose a person to those same risks.
In practical effect, the amendment does not create an independent right to use deadly force to defend property. The 2026 Amendment has new language suggesting an expansion of the affirmative defense of using force to defend property, it does not do that. The 2026 Amendment contains essentially the same person-centered threshold of imminent threat to a human that already governs Tennessee self-defense law under Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-611.
As enacted, it entirely denies property owners the ability to rely on deadly force to protect property unless the facts independently amount to a classic self-defense scenario.