WeVote
Log In

Bill

Bill

HB 931

Criminal Offenses - As introduced, specifies that a person using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury from within the person's residence or dwelling is presumed to have acted in self-defense when that force is used against an individual armed with a deadly weapon who is unlawfully present on the person's property and outside of the enclosed structure of the person's residence or dwelling. - Amends TCA Title 39, Chapter 11 and Title 40.

114th Regular Session (2025-2026) Introduced by Joe Towns

Tennessee bill presumes homeowners acted in self-defense using lethal force against armed intruders unlawfully on their property, shifting legal burden to prosecutors.

Action Def. in s/c Criminal Justice Subcommittee to 3/25/2026
#criminaloffenses
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 931

Legislative bill overview

HB 931 expands Tennessee's self-defense protections by creating a legal presumption that a homeowner acted in self-defense when using force intended to cause death or serious injury against an armed intruder who is unlawfully present outside (but near) their residence. The bill modifies existing self-defense statutes in Tennessee's criminal code to strengthen protections for property owners facing armed threats.

Why is this important

Self-defense laws directly affect when homeowners can legally use lethal force without facing criminal prosecution or civil liability. This presumption shifts the legal burden—prosecutors would need to overcome the presumption rather than homeowners proving they acted defensively—which can significantly impact outcomes in home invasion and armed intruder cases.

Potential points of contention

  • Scope ambiguity: "Outside of the enclosed structure" but still on property is somewhat vague—how far from the house does protection extend, and could this apply to driveways, yards, or surrounding land?
  • Armed requirement specificity: The bill requires the intruder be "armed with a deadly weapon"—questions arise about what qualifies as deadly, burden of proof, and whether homeowners must verify this before acting
  • Potential for overreach: Expanded presumptions could protect lethal force in edge cases (e.g., armed trespasser who poses no immediate threat, disputes over property boundaries) that some view as excessive
  • Interaction with duty to retreat: Tennessee already has "Castle Doctrine" protections; this further limits any obligation to flee, which some argue removes incentive for de-escalation

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.