Posted on 06/03/2026 4:29:51 AM PDT by marktwain
Governor Bill Lee has signed Tennessee Bill SB1847 into law on May 22, 2026. The bill reforms the law on restrictions of the use of deadly force, allowing some uses of deadly force to protect property in certain circumstances.
Tennessee Bill SB1847 started out as a significant expansion of the legal use of deadly force in Tennessee. The bill would have made the use of deadly force in defense of property legal for a broad swath of issues, including trespass. In the Legislative process the bill was amended to specify the use of deadly force would be legally acceptable in fewer situations.
From a previous AmmoLand article:
The new language allows residents to use deadly force to prevent “the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or aggravated cruelty to animals; “if the resident reasonably believes the property cannot otherwise be protected and the use of lesser force would expose the resident or a third party to “a risk of death, serious bodily injury, or grave sexual abuse.”
The bill passed both houses on April 23, 2026. The bill took a month to be signed by Governor Bill Lee. Legislatures have a sequence of events which are required before a governor signs a bill into law, vetoes the bill, or in Tennessee as in some other states, allows the bill to become law without the governor’s signature. Those sequences allow the leadership of a legislature to speed up or delay the sending of the bill to the governor. The governor can choose when to sign a bill after it is received, within limits.
Tennessee’s process is fairly straightforward. The bill is made ready for the signatures of the Senate Speaker and the House Speaker, to certify the bill is what the legislature passed.
(Excerpt) Read more at ammoland.com ...
Dear FRiends,
We need your continuing support to keep FR funded. Your donations are our sole source of funding. No sugar daddies, no advertisers, no paid memberships, no commercial sales, no gimmicks, no tax subsidies. No spam, no pop-ups, no ad trackers.
If you enjoy using FR and agree it's a worthwhile endeavor, please consider making a contribution today:
Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you,
Jim
Love it. Especially the “or aggravated cruelty to animals” part. When we moved here we were shocked at how awful people were when it came to caring for their pets. Neglect and abuse ... really bad. We’d be going to neighbors’ homes where dogs were tied up, and putting food and water in their empty dishes.
“or aggravated cruelty to animals”
That’s always a capital crime as far as I’m concerned!
“”the use of deadly force would be legally acceptable in fewer situations.””
What are the “fewer” situations? What was taken out?
Just to clarify, the article is not saying that deadly force will be acceptable in fewer situations than was the case under previous law.
The article is saying that deadly force will be legally acceptable in far more situations than previously, but not quite all of the circumstances allowed in the original bill.
So the original bill had a few protections removed but retained 95% of them. So “fewer situation” just means fewer than the total in the original bill, but still a massive expansion of situations where Tennessee residents can use letal force than under previous law.
The article did not specity the few additional situations that were removed from the bill.
I seem to recall the bill originally allowed property owners to shoot trespassers, period. That would have pleased me. You wouldn’t believe how many trespassers cross onto private lands without permission. I’ve experienced it. Many times I was alone & there were 2-3 trespassers that had to cross the signs & the barbed wire that showed No Trespassing.
Did I read your reply as you will now be going to other people’s homes to shoot the pet owners for starving their pets?
I interpret this law as if someone enters a property and abuses the property owners animals that the owner of property and animals can use deadly force.
The McClutskies (sp?), the couple arrested for “brandishing a weapon” during the riots, had 2 laws that were supposed to protect them. The castle doctrine and another one (stand your ground?) that allowed use of force outside the home if threatened. Yet they were still arrested and went through a hellish ordeal trying to defend themselves. In court.
They shouldn’t even have gone to court especially given the audio that clearly had the mob threatening their lives AFTER the rioters broke through the gates of the housing development or whatever it was.
But, if a rancher sees a sniper in the trees lining up to take a shot at livestock, the rancher is now able to protect his cattle by killing the sniper?
I wouldn't endorse assassinating a cruel owner of a severely neglected pet, but I would endorse giving him a Jimmy Hoffa knee with a Louisville Slugger. Or, otherwise just a good whoopin.
I agree with your assessment. That law (lethal force against trespassers) desperately needs to be implemented throughout our border states with messyco.
We really need a series of Fed and state laws permitting Free to Defend, either people or property.
Thanks. I will learn one of these days that not everything has to make sense to me...
“old dog - old tricks.”
That was in MO and after being arrested, having to defend themselves, having their weapons confiscated, won their case and I thought they had their weapons returned to them in the past couple years? The battle took 5 years. Looks like only the AR15 was returned...
Yep- it never should have gone to court-
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.