.jpg)
Sunday evening, an alleged home invader was shot and killed by a homeowner in Roane County. While loss of life is usually regrettable; in this case, the home invader was, according to the story in the News-Sentinel, with an accomplice who admitted they had planned to burglarize the home.
Under Tennessee's Castle Doctrine, the homeowner was reportedly well within his legal right to use deadly force against this home invader.
In Tennessee, the Castle Doctrine applies not only to one's home, as reported by WATE-TV but allows individuals to use deadly force to protect themselves wherever they have a legal right to be.
The problem with the Castle Doctrine in Tennessee, however, is the disconnect between it and the reality for most Tennesseans, who, in contrast with most contiguous states, requires one to gain permission from the State before going forth armed. Most of these surrounding states view the personal vehicle as an "extension of the home". Citizens who legally own firearms in those states may carry a defensive firearm in their car without the need for a permit.
Are Tennesseans less trustworthy than their neighbors? Should the Castle Doctrine be negated because one does not have the money to get a permit?
I think not.
If you found this article to be interesting, you may like this one:
Is it moral to use deadly force in self defense?
You can subscribe at the top of any article (free), to receive an email each time a new article is posted.
Colleague David Codrea reports: Obama signs bill mandating gun OWNERS to be locked up in boxes on trains
Comments
The reason for the 2nd Amendment was to provide protection for citizens from the government. With Obama in the White House, America is plunging toward a second civil war!
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!