Latest on Castle Doctrine in Tn ?

This is a discussion on Latest on Castle Doctrine in Tn ? within the Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; Does anyone in Tennessee know the latest scoop on the Castle Doctrine ? I go to Nashville quite often and use to live there. I've ...

Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Latest on Castle Doctrine in Tn ?

  1. #1
    VIP Member
    Array kentuckycarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    kentucky
    Posts
    2,219

    Latest on Castle Doctrine in Tn ?

    Does anyone in Tennessee know the latest scoop on the Castle Doctrine ? I go to Nashville quite often and use to live there. I've been researching it and have only found that it is really being pushed. I believe it came real close to passing not long ago.

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #2
    Senior Member Array INTJ's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Middle Tennessee
    Posts
    596

    Thumbs up Tennessee Castle Doctrine, No Retreat

    Placed on cal. Judiciary Committee for 04/11/2007
    HB0668 by *Swafford. (*SB0187 by *Stanley.)

    Criminal Procedure - Expands presumption of reasonableness regarding use of force to protect self or others to dwellings other than residence and vehicles and expressly provides that person is immune from criminal prosecution or civil liability for justified use of self-defense. - Amends TCA Title 39, Chapter 11, Part 6.

    Bill Summary for HB0668 / *SB0187

    This bill revises present law governing self-defense.

    PRESENT LAW

    Under present law, a person is justified in threatening or using force against another individual when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary for self-defense. The person must have a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. The danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury must be real, or honestly believed to be real at the time, and must be founded upon reasonable grounds. There is no duty to retreat before a person threatens or uses force.

    Under present law, any person using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within the person's own residence is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or serious bodily injury to self, family or a member of the household when that force is used against another individual, not a member of the family or household, who unlawfully and forcibly enters or has unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence, and the person using the force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

    THIS BILL

    This bill rewrites the present law provisions governing self-defense.

    Under this bill, a person who is not engaged in unlawful activity and is in a place where such person has a right to be would have no duty to retreat before:

    (1) Threatening or using force against another person when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force; or
    (2) Threatening or using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury if the person has a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury, the danger creating the belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury is real, or honestly believed to be real at the time, and the belief of danger is founded upon reasonable grounds.

    Under this bill, there would be a presumption that a person who used force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury within any residence, dwelling, or occupied vehicle (as opposed to just that person's own residence as under present law) held a reasonable belief of imminent death or serious bodily injury to self, family, a member of the household, or a person visiting as an invited guest. This presumption would apply when the force is used against another person who is not a member of the person's family or household and who unlawfully and forcibly entered the residence or dwelling.

    The above presumption would not apply under the following circumstances:

    (1) The person against whom the force is used has the right to be in or is a lawful resident of the dwelling, residence, or vehicle;
    (2) The person against whom the force is used is attempting to remove a person who is in the lawful custody or under the lawful guardianship of the person against whom the defensive force is used;
    (3) The person using force is engaged in an unlawful activity or is using the dwelling, residence, or occupied vehicle to further an unlawful activity; or
    (4) The person against whom force is used is a law enforcement officer who enters or attempts to enter a dwelling, residence, or vehicle in the performance of the officer's official duties and the officer identified himself in accordance with any applicable law, or the person using force knew or reasonably should have known that the person entering or attempting to enter was a law enforcement officer.

    Under this bill, the threat or use of force against another is not justified:

    (1) If the person using force consented to the exact force used or attempted by the other individual;
    (2) If the person using force provoked the other individual's use or attempted use of unlawful force, unless the person using force abandons the encounter or clearly communicates to the other the intent to do so and the other person nevertheless continues or attempts to use unlawful force against the person; or
    (3) To resist a halt at a roadblock, arrest, search, or stop and frisk that the person using force knows is being made by a law enforcement officer, unless the law enforcement officer uses or attempts to use greater force than necessary to make the arrest, search, stop and frisk, or halt, and the person using force reasonably believes that the force is immediately necessary to protect against the law enforcement officer's use or attempted use of greater force than necessary.

    This bill provides immunity from civil liability for a person who uses lawful force in defense of self, others, or property except when the force is used against a law enforcement officer acting in an official capacity who identified himself or when the person using the force knew or should have known that the person against whom force was used was a law enforcement officer.

    The court would award reasonable attorney's fees, court costs, compensation for loss of income, and all expenses incurred by a person in defense of any civil action brought against the person based upon that person's use of force if the court finds that the person's use of force was justified.

    NOTE: Section 1, subsection (c) of this bill appears to apply to residences, dwellings, and occupied vehicles; however, a subsequent reference within that subsection refers only to residences.
    "Beware of the man who only owns one gun. He probably knows how to use it."

  4. #3
    VIP Member
    Array kentuckycarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    kentucky
    Posts
    2,219
    Thanks for the info. I had read that somewhere, but was wondering when this goes up for vote...

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Castle Doctrine in NC
    By Deb in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 21
    Last Post: May 5th, 2009, 09:17 AM
  2. Castle Doctrine - NC
    By hardlivin in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: March 14th, 2009, 03:45 PM
  3. castle doctrine
    By python2 in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: January 3rd, 2007, 09:19 AM
  4. PA Castle Doctrine
    By tryzub in forum Concealed Carry Issues & Discussions
    Replies: 19
    Last Post: August 18th, 2006, 06:42 PM
  5. NRA - MD need for castle doctrine
    By P95Carry in forum The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: April 10th, 2006, 08:04 PM

Search tags for this page

castle doctrine in tennessee
,
castle doctrine in tn
,

castle doctrine tennessee

,
castle doctrine tn
,
castle law tennessee
,
does tennessee have a castle doctrine
,
does tennessee have a castle law
,

tennessee castle doctrine

,
tennessee castle doctrine law
,
tennessee castle law
,

tn castle doctrine

,
tn castle law
Click on a term to search for related topics.