Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire Is self defense a right in Tennessee?

The State of Tennessee treats self defense as a statutory issue instead of as a right guaranteed the citizen. Proof of that is in the following A.G Opinion from 1996:

Tenn. Op. Atty. Gen. No. 96-079 (Tenn.A.G.), 1996 WL 205427

Office of the Attorney General

State of Tennessee

Opinion No. 96-079
April 24, 1996
Self Defense

*1 Representative James L. Peach, Sr.
115 War Memorial Building
Nashville, Tennessee 37243-0174

QUESTIONS

(1) Does a citizen have a fundamental constitutional right under the United States or Tennessee Constitution to engage in self defense or is such right merely a statutory one?

(2) If a person does have a constitutional right to self defense, do the provisions of Tennessee Code Annotated, Section 39-17-1307, prohibiting a person from carrying a weapon with the intent to go armed, conflict with a person's right to carry a weapon for self protection?

OPINIONS

(1) The doctrine of self defense is statutory in Tennessee.

(2) The answer to question one (1) renders a response to question two (2) unnecessary.
ANALYSIS

1. No provision of the Tennessee or United States constitutions expressly mentions self defense. In Tennessee, it has been viewed as developing from the common law. The doctrine of self defense arose in England. The laws provided for punishment even when the defendant killed or injured someone in self defense. The King began the practice of pardoning these defendants. 2 F. Pollack and F. Maitland, The History of English Law 478-84 (1899). Eventually a series of statutes recognized self defense as an
excuse for breaches of the peace and even homicide. 2 Blackstone's Commentaries (1803). Tennessee, through North Carolina, adopted the common law of England. Dunn v. Palermo, 522 S.W.2d 679 (Tenn. 1975). The common law “prevails unless and until changed by statute.” State v. Alley, 594 S.W.2d 381, 382 (Tenn. 1980). Tennessee statutes establish the defense of self defense. Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-611. The Tennessee Sentencing Commission Comments appearing after the statute state that “this section codifies much of the common law doctrine of self defense.” It is the opinion of this Office that in Tennessee the law of self defense is statutory. It is not a constitutional right under the Tennessee Constitution.

(2) The answer to question one (1) renders a response to question two (2) unnecessary.

Charles W. Burson
Attorney General & Reporter
Michael E. Moore

Per the following Court rulings:
“This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty .... The right to self defence is the first law of nature: in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine the right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any colour or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction.” District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 606 (2008)

“[T]he right to keep arms involves, necessarily, the right to use such arms for all the ordinary purposes, and in all the ordinary modes usual in the country, and to which arms are adapted, limited by the duties of a good citizen in times of peace.” Andrews, 50 Tenn., at 178 District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 614 (2008)

“In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler,289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P.2d 94, 98 (1980) (citing G. Neumann, Swords and Blades of the American Revolution 6–15, 252–254 (1973)) District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 624-25 (2008)

At the time of the founding, as now, to “bear” meant to “carry.” When used with “arms,” however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose—confrontation. In Muscarello v. United States,524 U.S. 125, 118 S.Ct. 1911, 141 L.Ed.2d 111 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, Justice GINSBURG wrote that “[s]urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution's Second Amendment ... indicate[s]: ‘wear, bear, or carry ... upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose ... of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’ ” Id., at 143, 118 S.Ct. 1911 (dissenting opinion) (quoting Black's Law Dictionary 214 (6th ed.1998)). We think that Justice GINSBURG accurately captured the natural meaning of “bear arms.” Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of “offensive or defensive action,” it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization. - District of Columbia et al. v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 584 (2008)

“In Heller and McDonald, we held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.” New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, No. 20-843, 14 (U.S. Jun. 23, 2022) (Not dicta, but a holding)

“As we stated in Heller and repeated in McDonald, "individual self-defense is 'the central component' of the Second Amendment right." McDonald, 561 U.S., at 767 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S., at 599); see also id., at 628 ("the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right").” New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, No. 20-843, 26 (U.S. Jun. 23, 2022)

1. Is Self defense a right for Tennesseans now due to the incorporation of the 2nd Amendment against the state?
2. Does a 15 year history of SCOTUIS rulings saying that the 2nd Amendment guarantees the citizen’s right to bear arms for self defense as a central component of the 2nd Amendment abrogate the holding of self defense in Tennessee as statutory only?

So what is your question?

Georgia has a Stand-Your-Ground clause in our Constitution.

Is there a right to self defense, or can the police state negate that by statute?

TCA 39-11-611
(b)
(1) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in conduct that would constitute a felony or Class A misdemeanor and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force against another person when and to the degree the person reasonably believes the force is immediately necessary to protect against the other's use or attempted use of unlawful force.
(2) Notwithstanding § 39-17-1322, a person who is not engaged in conduct that would constitute a felony or Class A misdemeanor and is in a place where the person has a right to be has no duty to retreat before threatening or using force intended or likely to cause death or serious bodily injury, if:
(A) The person has a reasonable belief that there is an imminent danger of death, serious bodily injury, or grave sexual abuse;
(B) The danger creating the belief of imminent death, serious bodily injury, or grave sexual abuse is real, or honestly believed to be real at the time; and
(C) The belief of danger is founded upon reasonable grounds.
(3) For purposes of this subsection (b), a person is not engaged in conduct that would constitute a felony or Class A misdemeanor or in a place where the person does not have a right to be if the person is engaged in the activity or in the place due to the person's status as a victim of human trafficking. The person must prove the person's status as a victim of human trafficking by clear and convincing evidence. The person may provide clear and convincing evidence of the person's status as a victim of human trafficking through testimony.