• Feb 15, 2007
Apparently the increase in violent crimes in Tennessee is leading legislators to take some unprecedented actions. They have filed bills that would increase the rights of citizens to bear arms and use those arms with deadly force in certain situations. Like during a carjacking. One bill in particular would allow motorists to kill an attacker that they feel is threatening to "murder, rape, kidnap, rob or carjack the car's occupants." Filing the bill was Rep. Ulysses Jones and Sen. Reginald Tate, two Memphis Democrats. "I've heard a lot of support for this. It's time to give citizens the opportunity to protect themselves. Right now, we're at the mercy of what I call 'scum'," said Jones, a Memphis Fire Department paramedic.

The important shift here is that potential victims had only been allowed the right of defense inside their homes. Extending the right to outside the home, and particularly to a motorist in a vehicle, is a dramatic change. The NRA has helped push similar laws through in Florida, but Tennessee is believed to be the first effort to extend rights to motorists. These so-called "No Retreat" laws change the burden of attackees so that fleeing isn't the only option. Standing your ground and defending yourself and your property is allowed instead.

[Source: Memphis Commercial Appeal]


I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 32 Comments
      rlopees
      • 7 Years Ago
      I'm really not a fan of guns in general, but I understand that people feel the need to carry them to defend themselves. Unfortunate, but true. The tricky part is when they are being used to defend property and not human life. This article seems to indicate that there has to be a fear that the motorist is in jeapordy and not just the vehicle. That might be really hard to prove and seems to be the biggest problem with this type of legislation.

      The theory that if everyone is armed, people will be less likely to commit crime doesn't seem too valid as there will always be people with more firepower or more skill at using it. And the idea of people who would normally use fists to settle an argument having something much more lethal in their hands is very troubling. A new Wild West scenario pops to mind and it's not a pretty one.
      • 7 Years Ago

      "The best way to reduce crime is to raise the minimum wage and increase school funding."

      Shoot 'em in the head, quicker, cheaper, permanent.
      • 7 Years Ago
      This will change nothing. Criminals wont change their behavior and anyone who would have used a gun/deadly force would do it regardless of the laws.
      • 7 Years Ago
      A_DUCK...your interpretation of my statement may be a common one and so I thank you for the legal clarification. I intended to point out that the right to use deadly force (as it is the focus of the article) in the defense of a vehicle as opposed to a home was the new twist in this legislation. At least that was my understanding based on the source article.
      far jr
      • 7 Years Ago
      Good job Tennessee. Glad to see so many support this idea. I'd kinda like to see some reasons why people wouldn't think this would be good nationwide. Is there any reason?
      • 7 Years Ago
      "This will change nothing. Criminals wont change their behavior and anyone who would have used a gun/deadly force would do it regardless of the laws."

      It may not change behavior, but it will change the consequences. At least now the guy who shoots a carjacker to defend himself, his car, and/or his passengers won't go to prison for it.
      • 7 Years Ago
      "We recently had a carjacking in east TN that ended badly... very badly. A young college couple were driving home, and were carjacked-- but it didn't end with just a car being stolen. The young man was shot and lit on fire. His screaming girlfriend was taken to a house and gang-raped for several days before being murdered."

      Yup. It was in Knoxville.

      Two Black gentlemen did this to two beautiful UT Students who had their entire lives infront of them.

      Just another benefit of diversity. I wonder when Whites will wakeup to their brainwashing and realize the people who never had a wheel or a successful country are NOT a benefit.

      What do you expect when the 13% Black population of the US commits 48%+ of the violent crime?

      Gun control laws simply disarm defenseless Whites against an increasingly violent, gang-oriented, "diverse" America where Blacks and Browns from Latin America control the cities with gangs and drugs. There's a reason these people come from third world nations.

      Hell, Europe is turning into a Muslim cesspool. If you look at the crime rates in the UK, France, or even Sweden you'll notice a similar trend of people commiting disproportional amounts of crime in these nations.

      We need to send them back to their countries.There's a reason they never had a wheel or written language while another race sent man to the moon and gave the world virtually everything, while they have given nothing.
      • 7 Years Ago
      Nuke Em
      • 7 Years Ago
      This is a different Mike than #12 but I agree with him. It's ridiculous to expect the government will take care of everything.

      As far as this act, maybe it won't change anything, but if one criminal is blown away by someone protecting themselves, it's worth it. We have to stop protecting the criminals and start protecting our citizens by making them able to protect themselves and not suffer for refusing to be a victim.

      Have you ever heard the saying: Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day, teach a man to fish, he'll eat for a lifetime? It holds true here, people able to protect themselves will not be victims to the scurge of society.
      • 7 Years Ago
      This will be interesting to see how it plays out. By all means I think a person should be able to defend themselves, but this could mean everyone and his dog will be driving around with a gun in their glovebox, good or bad.

      The death sentence does not deter violent crime, this has been proven. I don't think the idea of the victim possibly having a gun will deter an attacker much either, because if you're desperate enough to carjack someone with a gun, then you've already thought over (or not, in which case you're just an idiot regardless) the consequences of your actions.

      Strong families deter crime. Children with parents who care about them and are actively involved in their education are less likely to turn to crime. The best way to reduce crime is to raise the minimum wage and increase school funding.

      Think about this: What is the most common cause for most fights/arguments in a family household? Money problems, fueled by alcohol or other substances. When parents are making a living wage, then they can spend more time with their children and be under less stress, reducing domestic violence. When parents have more time to spend with their kids, those kids are less likely to make bad choices later in life.

      The increase in school funding will pay for itself over the long run when there are less people in prison. In my state, we spend about $30,000 per year per prisoner to house and feed them, while the state spends about $2,500 per student per year for education. Seem a little unbalanced?
      • 7 Years Ago
      In reply to Peter in Old Europe, the violent crime rate of Europe is actually twice as high as it is in America. IIRC, we average something like 4,500 violent crimes per 100,000, whereas the EU average is something near 10k per 100,000.

      The simple fact that everyone chooses to ignore is that a a demographic, people with carry permits (ie, the right to carry a weapon concealed or otherwise) have a lower murder and violent crime rate than any other demographic, including police officers.

      That leads to the conclusion that people who are interested in taking the responsibility to preserve their own life, property and family are actually better and more responsible citizens than those who leave it to chance or the government.

      I'm not sure how allowing these people, who have proven over the years to be very responsible with their right to self-preservation, to have that right extended to their mobile domicile, the automobile, without having to leave it to chance that a person pointing a gun at them actually means them no harm.
      • 7 Years Ago
      The federal government is supposed to care of us?
      Crap! All this time I been buyin' my own groceries, washin' my own clothes, goin' to work every day..
    • Load More Comments