Image Credit: TN General Assembly
The Tennessee Conservative [By Olivia Lupia] –
A bill seeking to lower the standard in Tennessee for the use of deadly force when protecting private property is set to become law after the House passed the bill and the Senate agreed to its amendment on the final day of the 2026 legislative session.
HB1802 by Rep. Kip Capley allows for the use of deadly force if a person “reasonably believes deadly force is immediately necessary to prevent the other’s imminent commission of arson, burglary, robbery, aggravated robbery, or aggravated cruelty to animals” in the event the person using deadly force cannot protect their property any other way or if the use of force by other means would expose them or someone else to risk of death, serious bodily injury or grave sexual abuse.
Shooting a person in the back would not be justified under the bill’s protections.
An amendment to the bill clarifies some language and specifies that to fall under self-defense statutes, the person who uses deadly force in protecting their property must not be “engaged in conduct that would constitute a felony or a Class A misdemeanor” and “is in a place where the person lawfully resides.”
Pushback on the bill primarily came from Democrats during Thursday’s floor session, though Republican Greg Martin did kick off the debate by expressing concern about the definition of “reasonable belief”.
Rep. Capley responded the precise interpretation would be determined on a case-by-case basis but reiterated the standards set in the bill ensure that deadly force is only justifiable as the absolute last resort a person has.
“If someone is in your barn and they’re taking a rake and you shoot them and kill them, obviously you could have done something else to keep them from doing that. That’s not what we’re talking about here,” he elaborated. “Now, if a gentleman has several million dollars’ worth of equipment in a barn and he sees somebody burning his barn down and he tells them to stop and they don’t stop, then if he feels like lethal force is the only way to get them to stop committing that crime, then he would be able to do so.”
After Martin’s continued hesitations, Capley reaffirmed that the person must sincerely believe the property cannot be protected in absolutely any other way or that the criminal’s actions cannot be terminated by any other means, and there must be imminent danger to the individual or a third party to be justified under the legislation.
But Martin was not assuaged by these reassurances, offering another hypothetical example of an elderly person who may have dementia being lost and accidentally stealing something. “I could certainly see how this bill could be a justification for someone to say, ‘well I reasonably thought that they were going to do something’ that was not murder but a crime of stealing,” he said before using his opinion on a Bible verse to justify his position.
“And I would just say this; the Good Book says that it’s an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. And what that really is given to humanity for is to restrain us from going after someone in a greater way then they have harmed us. In other words, if someone takes your eye, thought was, you could take their eye but not their life. If someone knocks your tooth out, perhaps they could have their tooth knocked out but you couldn’t take their life. And so, my concern here is that what I’m hearing you say is that if someone is stealing from you, not harming you in the sense that they’re gonna kill you, but if they’re stealing from you and your property or maybe they’re in the wrong place at the wrong time, that you could do something more than an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth,” he concluded.
Capley reiterated the specifics laid out in the bill once again. “If you shoot someone who has dementia, obviously you’re going to go to court and you’re going to be prosecuted. If you stand there and say, ‘Hey, I shot this guy, he was just on my property,’ that’s not what this bill does, has nothing to do with what we’re talking about.”
Becoming more impassioned, he continued, “Now, if you do go to court, and that gentleman was, like in the example that I gave previously, was burning down your barn and you’ve only got insurance on, let’s say $250,000 worth of equipment, but I’ve spent 20 years of my life building $5 million worth of whatever, and I don’t stop him and shoot him right now, then it’s going to be on me. It’s going to be on my family. I’m going to have to defend myself because a criminal came on my property and burned down my stuff. That’s not right.”
Several Democrats objected to the bill with similar arguments, including their emphasis on the “epidemic of gun violence” and stating the bill would allow people to kill with impunity and use “reasonable belief” as an excuse.
Discussion devolved when Democrat Rep. Justin Jones spoke, calling the legislation a “shoot first bill” and saying, “What we’re encouraging is vigilante-style violence, we’re encouraging escalation…This is going to allow people to shoot homeless folks [for trespassing].”
Jones then became agitated when Rep. Capley would not repeat examples and arguments he had already given multiple times to the others in opposition, resorting to personal insults at the end of his speaking time. “I think the people of your district deserve better, and I hope you would be very serious in considering legislation like this. You can laugh all you want, but I see that your answers are non-existent, just like your hairline. Take care.”
Following that outburst and a vote to find Jones out of order in violation of Rule 19, the question was called and the body moved to the vote. The bill passed 62-24 along party lines, with three Republicans marking themselves “Present Not Voting”. Rep. Martin and a couple other Republicans chose not to vote at all and will not appear on the vote record as a result.
As the already passed Senate version, SB1847 by Sen. Joey Hensley, did not include the House’s amendment, the bill had to return to that chamber for concurrence. The body voted 23-5 to conform to the House language, with Republican Todd Gardenhire joining Democrats in voting “No”.
Now that the language matches in both bills, the legislation can proceed to the Governor for signature into law. It will take effect July 1, 2026.
About the Author: Olivia Lupia is a political refugee from Colorado who now calls Tennessee home. A proud follower of Christ, she views all political happenings through a Biblical lens and aims to utilize her knowledge and experience to educate and equip others. Olivia is an outspoken conservative who has run for local office, managed campaigns, and been highly involved with state & local GOPs, state legislatures, and other grassroots organizations and movements. Olivia can be reached at olivia@tennesseeconservativenews.com.
One Response
I am in a wheelchair and if someone tries to invade my home/person or family… start the funeral for them, guaranteed…… My gun is on me always… in a pouch between my legs and I will not be a handicap victim. I’ve gone through the carry permit training and have the NRA pistol marksman certificate. I can shoot very well so if I was forced to protect family/friends and/or myself… somebody is going to have a real bad day.