[Eric in the Ozarks]

Citizens do not have the right to use lethal force to protect their property. This is settle law. (Katko vs. Briney.)

[SJSAMPLE]

Is that a local law?
Because in Texas, and a few other states, you do.

[Still Thinking]

Citizens do not have the right to use lethal force to protect their property. This is settle law. (Katko vs. Briney.)

That information is either out of date or doesn't apply nationwide. A number of states have laws explicitly allowing use of deadly force to protect property.

[calex59]

Citizens do not have the right to use lethal force to protect their property. This is settle law. (Katko vs. Briney.)

Depends on what state you are living in, and nothing is settled law, NOTHING. Not all laws are constitutional and laws change all the time. Disallowing people to protect their property is unconstitutional, regardless of what the courts say. Saying something is settled law is what dimwits do when they want to impose their will on people, I.E.: climate change/global warming.

[Still Thinking]

Citizens do not have the right to use lethal force to protect their property. This is settle law. (Katko vs. Briney.)

Oddly, the Iowa Supreme Court doesn't find it necessary to consider the laws of other states when ruling on a case, and the states that have these laws for some reason don't find Iowa Supreme Court rulings to be binding precedent.