TN Gun law in the works
Seen here:
Senate Bill 2672, the Tennessee Castle Doctrine Bill sponsored by Senator Don McLeary (R-Jackson), seeks to expand the right of self-defense. The bill would extend that right to permit a person to use the same deadly force now allowed in a person’s residence to the immediate area and buildings around the residence and to other dwellings and vehicles. The bill, also known as the Stand Your Ground Bill, is scheduled for a hearing in Senate Judiciary Committee this week. “All law-abiding citizens have an innate right to self-defense, whether they are in their home, their barn, or their car,” stated Senator McLeary. A person’s home is that person’s castle is a long-recognized principle that has been eroded away over the years. This bill will help restore our self-defense zone. “Individuals have a right to stand their ground. There should never be a duty to retreat when you are confronted by someone who is threatening your life or a loved one just because you are in an outbuilding or in your vehicle instead of being inside your home at that particular moment. If enacted into law, this will reverse the pendulum swing that for far too long has swung in the direction of protecting the rights of criminals over the rights of victims,” concluded Senator McLeary. Senator McLeary’s bill would expand the Castle Doctrine to include the buildings and curtilage around a dwelling – including a temporary dwelling, such as a mobile home or tent – and to vehicles which would allow a person the use of self-defense against carjackers. His bill also expands the use of self-defense when protecting a third party, such as a relative or an invited guest who is staying in someone else’s home. It would also require an aggressor who is injured by someone who exercises the right of self-defense and who sues in civil court to pay all legal costs.
I thought the majority of states, including Tennessee, already had such a law on the books. I’m not sure if the recent increase in the number of these being passed is for clarification or if the pro-gun sources that said that weren’t correct. And I like how an aggressor would be forced to pay all legal costs.
March 21st, 2006 at 3:15 pm
The statute would seemingly allocate liability against the perp.
Collecting on a judgment against him (or her) is another matter entirely.
March 22nd, 2006 at 4:35 am
The new Castle Doctrine law that went into effect here in Florida last year – about which the lefties were in such a panic – includes both a “no retreat” provision for public spaces and a civil lawsuit provision. If you have the legal right to be where you are you are not required to retreat and may defend yourself where you stand if attacked. Civil lawsuits are prohibited against those who legally defend themselves, no matter where it occurs.
March 22nd, 2006 at 12:08 pm
Homer wrote,
“If you have the legal right to be where you are you are not required to retreat and may defend yourself where you stand if attacked. Civil lawsuits are prohibited against those who legally defend themselves, no matter where it occurs.”
It’s mind-boggling that anyone would oppose that–except criminals who prey on unarmed victims. Unarmed pacifists are free to be just that; yet many of them want to impose their pacifism on the rest of us–by having hired government guns disarm us.