Witnesses urge committee to reject bill that would allow deadly force to protect property
Loading...
Summary
A House committee advanced HB 18‑02 as amended after debate and public testimony; opponents warned the measure would 'devalue human life' by permitting deadly force to protect property, while sponsors said the statute requires a reasonable belief of imminent danger for listed crimes.
A Tennessee House committee voted to advance HB 18‑02 as amended after a contested debate that included testimony from a gun‑safety advocate who urged the committee to reject the measure.
Kristen Sterling, who identified herself as a mother and health‑care provider representing the Tennessee chapter of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, told the committee the bill "devalues human life" because it would allow people to use deadly force to defend property. "This is a dangerous bill that attempts to expand Tennessee's self‑defense laws," Sterling said, adding it would "encourage vigilante violence and shoot first, ask questions later culture."
Supporters said the amended language narrows the provision to situations that involve serious, enumerated offenses and a reasonable belief that deadly force is immediately necessary. The sponsor said the amendment requires that the person "reasonably believes the property cannot be protected or the other's actions terminated by any other means" and that the danger be imminent for crimes such as arson, burglary, robbery or aggravated cruelty to animals.
Committee members pressed on scenarios raised during testimony — for example, whether someone who mistakenly drives onto a private driveway or a delivery worker at the wrong address could be targeted. Representative Preston Powell and others described violent real‑world examples and warned that the law could leave only one side of the story because the alleged victim might be deceased. The sponsor and other members responded that prosecutors and courts, not the statute alone, would determine whether a shooting was justified.
Vice Chair Davis, noting the amendment’s language, said the law "is not about stealing a rake" and emphasized the requirement that force must be necessary to prevent an imminent, serious offense. Multiple members referenced the statutory standard during the discussion.
After members called the previous question and debated briefly, the committee voted to send HB 18‑02 as amended to calendar and rules. The recorded tally on the motion to advance the bill was 16 ayes and 4 nos.
The committee’s action advances the bill for further consideration; no final enactment occurred in the hearing. The next procedural step is placement on the House calendar for additional consideration by the full chamber.
