Looks like Governor DeSantis may have started a trend.

REP. REEDY FILES LEGISLATION TO ALLOW USE OF DEADLY FORCE TO PROTECT REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY

Rep. Jay D. Reedy has filed House Bill 0011 which proposes a major change in Tennessee law. The unusual thing is that the bill actually appears to reflect what a lot of Tennesseans already believe is the law but is not. The new legislation reflects a heightened interest in the rights of people to protect their homes, businesses, properties and items from thieves, rioters, looters and other criminals.

Under current Tennessee law (see generally Tennessee Code Annotated Sec. 39-11-614 for example), a civilian is not allowed to use deadly force to a) protect personal property, b) to stop a trespass on real property, c) to terminate an attempted theft of property, or d) to make a citizen’s arrest. Further, under Tennessee law, the use of “deadly force” does not require that a person actually discharge a firearm or cause injury with any other weapon. A person may be accused and convicted of using deadly force merely by “brandishing” a weapon, that is, displaying it in a threatening manner towards another.

Tennesseans have expressed a heightened interest in their belief that they can protect their homes, cars, businesses and property from criminals particularly after the riots and looting events that have occurred across the nation in recent years. Further, the events involving Mark and Patrician McCloskey who stood outside their home in Missouri with firearms to resist a mob have also generated a great deal of discussion in Tennessee about what rights do Tennessean’s have to protect their homes from rioters, looters, violent protesters or mobs.

Rep. Reedy’s bill is the first to be filed this year that touches on key Second Amendment issues related to individual rights to protect their lives, families and assets. As initially filed, it proposes circumstances under which an individually might be legally justified in Tennessee to use deadly force against a specific criminal or group of criminals (e.g., brandishing a weapon or yelling “leave my property or I will shoot”).

In light of the events of 2020 and the increasing trends over the last few years of public episodes of intentional violence, mobs, looting, rioting often with little or no police resistance (particularly in major cities), the rights of individuals who are victims of such planned criminal events is now in the spotlight.


https://tennesseefirearms.com/...d-personal-property/

Good. I hope this is enacted in more states.

Thank you for posting this. This is good to know. I hope it goes through.
I own property in Tennessee and hope to retire there some day.

I kindof like it; but it needs to be very specific in nature. I don't think you should be allowed to shoot someone because they are stealing your lawnmower.

Car? Not sure.

A mob approaching the house with obvious intent ? Brandishing shouldn't be a crime. When are you allowed to shoot ? How many is a mob ? what constitutes "obvious intent to harm" ?

I like the idea, but it has to be spelled out or the wrong folks will die OR the wrong folks will go to jail while the specifics get hashed out in the courts.

quote:

Originally posted by Johnny 3eagles:
Good. I hope this is enacted in more states.

Careful what you wish for.
It needs to be very specific and great wisdom used in crafting this legislation.
Remember, leftist thugs will be trying to use this too.

Devil's advocate here...
If the number is 7 or more to make up a mob that you can legally ward off. What happens if say a group of 12 breaks up into two groups of 6 are coming at you from opposing directions? Or simply a mob of 200 passing by and perhaps wave after wave of groups of 6 are approaching your location?

Ohio too.
Of course all the articles I can find blather on about how it is such a bad idea.
https://fox8.com/news/i-team/l...es-to-ohio-gun-laws/

quote:

Originally posted by TRIO:
Devil's advocate here...
If the number is 7 or more to make up a mob that you can legally ward off. What happens if say a group of 12 breaks up into two groups of 6 are coming at you from opposing directions? Or simply a mob of 200 passing by and perhaps wave after wave of groups of 6 are approaching your location?

At the end of the day, you still have to justify deadly force. You can’t just go “Five, Six, Seven,......boom”. If you are justified in using deadly force on seven, you’re going to be justified if it’s six. The law is just giving you extra protection if there are seven or more.

Some rules here: I'm using a shotgun because there are very few rifling marks on the shot. When they come to recruit the idiot next door they're going to be pissed to learn he went to the big house 15 years ago. Taking out their frustrations on me will probably get them shot. Real good, as in OO buck. The nearest liquor store is a half mile down the road. It'll get real dry out this way, they're better off staying in town. Can't get a cop here when you need them, sure don't expect one when I don't.

The changes proposed sound like a good first step. There are laws and then there are how things really work. It would seem what the Tennessee guy is proposing is pretty much how things already work. First the cop's got to arrest you. Working against common sense is the police chief and his commie friends in the city government. Then we've got grand juries that often have a few good ole boys who compare how somebody acted against how they figure they'd act. It instills common sense into the whole mix up. Sounds to me like those folks down in TN have some stupid or crazy laws that need fixin'.

Ideally if you put someone down that has it coming it should be obvious to the responding police. Followed by: "Sorry for the inconvenience, someone will be along shortly to clean up the mess."

The end.

Obviously we won't get to that point, but this sounds like a step in the right direction.