Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Use Of Deadly Force Property topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee advances amended bill allowing deadly force to defend private property; public safety advocates oppose
Summary
HB 18‑02, amended to clarify when use of deadly force to protect property is justified, was advanced after testimony opposing expansion of deadly‑force defenses. Witnesses warned it could encourage vigilante shootings; proponents said the bill requires the person to reasonably believe deadly force was the only option.
The House Judiciary Committee adopted an amendment to HB 18‑02 and advanced the bill to calendar and rules after extended public testimony and member debate.
Kristen Sterling of Nashville, testifying for the Tennessee chapter of Moms Demand Action, urged the committee to reject the bill, saying: "We stand in opposition to HB 18 o 2 because it devalues human life." Sterling argued the proposal "encourages vigilante violence and shoot 1st, ask questions later culture" and warned it would place people of color and other vulnerable groups at heightened risk.
Sponsors and proponents said the amendment narrows the change by requiring that a person "reasonably believe[] deadly force is immediately necessary" to prevent specified crimes such as arson or burglary, and that the statute requires proof that lethal force was the only option. Representative supporters repeatedly said prosecutions would follow when bad actors abused any expanded defense. Committee debate ranged from hypothetical scenarios (wrong driveway or a misdelivered pizza) to concerns about funeral‑time consequences where a victim cannot testify.
Despite vocal opposition from public‑safety advocates and some members' reservations about unintended outcomes, the committee adopted the amendment and sent HB 18‑02 as amended to calendar and rules on a recorded vote of 16 ayes and 4 noes.
Next steps: The bill will appear on the full House calendar where proponents and opponents may continue to argue over the statutory standard and real‑world scenarios raised in testimony.
