Tennessee House Bill HB0931

Tennessee 2025-2026 Regular Session

• Introduced: 2/4/25
• Refer: 2/6/25

Caption

AN ACT to amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Title 39, Chapter 11 and Title 40, relative to self-defense.

Summary

HB0931 amends Tennessee’s self-defense law to expand the circumstances under which a person inside a residence or dwelling is presumed to have acted lawfully when using deadly force or force likely to cause death or serious bodily injury. Under the bill, that presumption applies when the force is used against an individual who is armed with a deadly weapon, is unlawfully present on the person’s property, and is outside the enclosed structure of the residence or dwelling. The bill also makes a conforming change to existing statutory language so that a cross-reference in the self-defense statute points to the newly designated subdivision. In practical terms, the bill broadens Tennessee’s “castle doctrine” protections by extending the legal presumption of justified force beyond the interior of the home to certain situations occurring on the property outside the enclosed structure. It does not create a new standalone defense, but it strengthens the evidentiary presumption that a homeowner or occupant acted in accordance with self-defense law in the specified circumstances. The act would take effect immediately upon becoming law.

Impact

The bill would amend Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 39-11-611, which governs self-defense and the use of force, by adding a new presumption in favor of persons using deadly force from within their residence or dwelling against armed trespassers unlawfully present on their property outside the enclosed structure. It also updates a related cross-reference in subsection (d) to reflect the renumbering of the existing language. The primary affected parties are homeowners, occupants, and law enforcement/courts applying self-defense presumptions in criminal cases.

Sentiment

No committee transcripts or vote records were provided, so there is no direct record of debate or recorded support/opposition in the materials supplied. Based on the text alone, the bill appears to reflect a pro-self-defense, pro-property-rights policy approach that would likely be viewed favorably by supporters of expanded home-defense protections. At the same time, the proposal could raise concerns among those wary of broadening deadly-force presumptions.

Contention

The main point of contention is likely the expansion of the self-defense presumption to incidents occurring outside the enclosed structure of a home, so long as the intruder is armed with a deadly weapon and unlawfully on the property. Supporters would likely argue this better protects residents facing armed threats on their property, while critics may argue it broadens the use-of-force presumption too far and could increase the risk of deadly encounters or complicate prosecutions in disputed self-defense cases. No specific named opponents or supporters are identified in the provided record.