Stand Your Ground Laws by State: All 50 States (2026)
Thirty-seven of the 50 states impose no duty to retreat outside the home: 29 by statute and eight by court decision alone. Two more are partial.
Thirty-seven of the 50 states impose no duty to retreat before using force outside the home — 29 by statute and eight by court decision alone. Two more remove the duty only in specific places, and 11 states still require retreat. But the label is not what decides a case. Only 11 states let a self-defense claim end a criminal prosecution before trial, and in five of those the burden of proof falls on the defender.
Last verified: 5 September 2026. Every row below was read against the state’s own code or courts, or against a labeled Cornell LII / Justia mirror where the official site blocks automated access. 33 states verified on an official government site, 17 on a mirror.
Key takeaways
- 37 of 50 states have no duty to retreat outside the home — 29 by statute, 8 by case law or pattern jury instruction only.
- Only 11 states offer a pretrial immunity determination that can end a criminal charge before a jury is ever seated. In 37 states, self-defense is a trial defense and nothing more.
- Among those 11, the burden allocation is not consistent. Five put it on the defender; six put it on the government. The standards range from probable cause to clear and convincing evidence.
- Eight states’ stand-your-ground rule exists only in case law — California, Colorado, Illinois, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, Virginia, Washington — so it can be narrowed by a court without a single legislative vote.
- Civil exposure is a separate question from criminal exposure. 26 states grant civil immunity, 12 grant it only partially, and 12 grant none at all.
- 26 states carry an active watch note — a 2023-or-later amendment, a pending bill, or an unresolved appellate split. Those are flagged in the table and listed in full below.
The number nobody publishes: which states let you end the case before trial
Almost every stand-your-ground resource stops at a three-way bucket — statutory, case law, or duty to retreat. That classification tells you what the jury will be instructed. It does not tell you the thing a person in this situation most wants to know: can this end before a trial?
It usually cannot. Having no duty to retreat is a rule about the merits. Immunity is a rule about procedure, and the two do not travel together. Texas has one of the broadest no-retreat statutes in the country and no criminal immunity hearing at all. Georgia’s no-retreat provision is unremarkable, but a Georgia defendant can move for dismissal before trial. Colorado has no stand-your-ground statute whatsoever, yet a Colorado occupant who was actually entered upon can assert immunity pretrial under People v. Guenther.
We could not find a single published 50-state table of this. Here is the complete list of states where a self-defense claim can be resolved before trial, with the burden and the standard for each.
| State | Pretrial determination available? | Who bears the burden, and at what standard | Controlling authority |
|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Yes | Defendant, preponderance | Ala. Code § 13A-3-23(d)(2) |
| Colorado | Yes | Defendant, preponderance — and only against a person who actually made an unlawful entry into the dwelling | People v. Guenther, 740 P.2d 971 (Colo. 1987) |
| Florida | Yes | State, clear and convincing — criminal only (after the defendant’s first-look showing) | Fla. Stat. § 776.032(4) |
| Georgia | Yes | Defendant, preponderance | Bunn v. State, 284 Ga. 410, 667 S.E.2d 605 (2008) |
| Kansas | Yes | State, probable cause | State v. Hardy, No. 110,982 (Kan. 2017) |
| Kentucky | Yes | Commonwealth, probable cause | Rodgers v. Commonwealth, No. 2007-SC-000040-MR (Ky. 2009) |
| North Carolina | Contested | None — Court of Appeals only; the N.C. Supreme Court has not resolved it | State v. Austin, 2021-NCCOA-494 |
| Oklahoma | Yes | Defendant, at a pretrial immunity hearing (standard not specified in the opinions reviewed) | Radford v. State, 2026 OK CR 6; McNeely v. State, 2018 OK CR 18 |
| South Carolina | Yes | Defendant, preponderance | State v. Duncan, 392 S.C. 404, 709 S.E.2d 662 (2011) |
| South Dakota | Yes | State, clear and convincing (after the defendant makes a first-look claim) | S.D. Codified Laws § 22-18-4.8 |
| Tennessee | Civil suits only | Civil: defendant makes the initial showing, then the burden shifts to the plaintiff. No criminal pretrial immunity. | Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-622(d)–(f) |
| Utah | Yes | State, clear and convincing | Utah Code § 76-2-309(3)(a)-(b) (enacted 2021) |
| Wyoming | Yes | Defendant first-look, then State, preponderance (criminal); defendant, preponderance (civil) | State v. John, 2020 WY 46; Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-1-204(b) |
Read the burden column carefully: it is the whole ballgame. In Alabama, Colorado, Georgia, Oklahoma and South Carolina the defender must affirmatively prove entitlement to immunity. In Florida, Kansas, Kentucky, South Dakota, Utah and Wyoming the prosecution must defeat it once the defender makes an initial showing. Tennessee has a genuine immunity hearing, but only against civil suits — a criminal charge still goes to trial. North Carolina is unresolved: its Court of Appeals held in State v. Austin that the statute confers immunity from conviction rather than from prosecution, and the state Supreme Court has not taken up the question.
Stand your ground laws by state: the full 50-state table
Sort by any column. “Presumption” means the state gives a rebuttable presumption that the defender’s fear was reasonable in specified circumstances — usually a forcible entry into a home, vehicle or workplace. “Verified at” records whether we read the text on the state’s own server or on a mirror.
| State | Status | Duty to retreat outside the home | Where the rule applies | Presumption of reasonable fear | Civil immunity | Pretrial criminal immunity | Who proves it, and to what standard | Primary citation | Last amended | Verified at |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alabama | Statutory | No | Any place lawfully present | Yes | Yes | Yes | Defendant, preponderance | Ala. Code § 13A-3-23(b) | 2016 | Mirror (Justia) |
| Alaska | Statutory | No | Any place lawfully present | No | Yes | No | None — justification is a trial defense | Alaska Stat. § 11.81.335(b)(5) | 2013 | Mirror (Justia) |
| Arizona | Statutory | No | Any place lawfully present, not engaged in an unlawful act | Yes | Yes | No | State, beyond reasonable doubt at trial only | A.R.S. § 13-405(B) | 2010 | Mirror (Justia) |
| Arkansas | Statutory | No | Any place lawfully present | Yes | Partial | No | None — justification is a trial defense | Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-607(b)(1) | 2021 | Mirror (Justia) |
| California | Case law | No (case law) | Any place lawfully present | Yes | No | No | None — justification is litigated at trial | CALCRIM No. 505; People v. King, 22 Cal. 3d 12, 21 n.3 (1978) | 1984 (Penal Code § 198.5; case-law rule undated) | Mirror (Justia) |
| Colorado | Case law | No (case law) | Any place lawfully present (non-aggressor) | No | Partial | Yes | Defendant, preponderance — and only against a person who actually made an unlawful entry into the dwelling | People v. Toler, 9 P.3d 341 (Colo. 2000) | 2020 (§ 18-1-704); 2016 (§ 18-1-704.5) | Mirror (Justia) |
| Connecticut | Duty to retreat | Yes, with exceptions | Dwelling and place of work | No | No | No | None — no immunity statute exists | Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-19(b)(1) | 2022 | Mirror (Justia) |
| Delaware | Duty to retreat | Yes, with exceptions | Dwelling and place of work | No | Partial | No | None — justification is a trial defense | 11 Del. C. § 464(e)(2)a.-b. | 2021 (§ 464; subsec. (e) unchanged since 1995) | Official |
| Florida | Statutory | No | Any place lawfully present | Yes | Yes | Yes | State, clear and convincing — criminal only (after the defendant’s first-look showing) | Fla. Stat. § 776.012(2) | 2014 (§ 776.012); 2017 (§ 776.032 immunity) | Official |
| Georgia | Statutory | No | Any place lawfully present | No | Yes | Yes | Defendant, preponderance | O.C.G.A. § 16-3-23.1 | 2006 | Mirror (Justia) |
| Hawaii | Duty to retreat | Yes, with exceptions | Dwelling and place of work | No | No | No | None — no immunity statute exists | Haw. Rev. Stat. § 703-304(5)(b)(i) | 2001 | Official |
| Idaho | Statutory | No | Any place lawfully present | Yes | Yes | No | None — § 19-202A(4) puts the burden on the State at trial | Idaho Code § 19-202A(3) | 2018 | Official |
| Illinois | Case law | No (case law) | Any place lawfully present | No | Partial | No | None — affirmative defense; the State must then disprove justification beyond a reasonable doubt at trial | 720 ILCS 5/7-1; IPI Criminal No. 24-25.09X | 2004 | Official |
| Indiana | Statutory | No | Any place lawfully present | No | Yes | No | None — IC 34-30-31-1(d) is a civil summary-judgment burden shift, not criminal dismissal | Ind. Code § 35-41-3-2(c) | 2024 | Mirror (Justia) |
| Iowa | Statutory | No | Any place lawfully present | Yes | Yes | No | Defendant, preponderance | Iowa Code § 704.1(3) | 2017 | Official |
| Kansas | Statutory | No | Any place lawfully present | Yes | Yes | Yes | State, probable cause | K.S.A. § 21-5222(c) | 2011 | Official |
| Kentucky | Statutory | No | Any place lawfully present | Yes | Yes | Yes | Commonwealth, probable cause | KRS § 503.055(3) | 2006 | Official |
| Louisiana | Statutory | No | Any place lawfully present | Yes | Yes | No | None — justification is a trial defense | La. Rev. Stat. § 14:20(C) | 2014 | Official |
| Maine | Duty to retreat | Yes, outside the home | Dwelling only | No | Partial | No | None — justification is a trial defense | 17-A M.R.S. § 108(2)(C)(1) | 2007 | Official |
| Maryland | Duty to retreat | Yes, outside the home | Dwelling only (common-law castle doctrine) | No | Partial | No | None — self-defense is common law, resolved at trial | Jarvis v. State, No. 22, Sept. Term 2023 (Md. Aug. 12, 2024) | None — case law (2024) | Official |
| Massachusetts | Duty to retreat | Yes, outside the home | Dwelling only | No | Partial | No | None — justification is a trial defense | Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 367 Mass. 508 (1975); G.L. c. 278, § 8A | 1981 (§ 8A); Shaffer 1975 | Mirror (Justia) |
| Michigan | Statutory | No | Any place lawfully present, not committing a crime | Yes | Yes | No | State, must present evidence at warrant, preliminary exam and trial | MCL § 780.972(1) | 2006 | Mirror (Justia) |
| Minnesota | Duty to retreat | Yes, outside the home | Dwelling only (case law) | No | No | No | None — no immunity statute exists | State v. Blevins, No. A22-0432 (Minn. July 31, 2024); State v. Glowacki, 630 N.W.2d 392 (Minn. 2001) | 1986 | Official |
| Mississippi | Statutory | No | Any place lawfully present | Yes | Partial | No | None — no criminal immunity in current law | Miss. Code Ann. § 97-3-15(4) | 2023 | Mirror (Justia) |
| Missouri | Statutory | No | Any place lawfully present | No | Yes | No | None — no Missouri appellate authority holds § 563.074 supports a pretrial motion | Mo. Rev. Stat. § 563.031.3(3) | 2016 | Official |
| Montana | Statutory | No | Any place lawfully present | No | Yes | No | State, beyond reasonable doubt at trial only | Mont. Code Ann. § 45-3-110 | 2009 | Official |
| Nebraska | Duty to retreat | Yes, outside the home | Dwelling and place of work only | No | No | No | None — no immunity statute exists | Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1409(4)(b) | 1972 | Official |
| Nevada | Statutory | No | Any place lawfully present | Yes | Yes | No | None | Nev. Rev. Stat. § 200.120(2) | 2015 | Official |
| New Hampshire | Statutory | No | Any place with a right to be | No | Yes | No | None | N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 627:4, III(a) | 2011 | Official |
| New Jersey | Duty to retreat | Yes, outside the home | Dwelling only | No | No | No | None — no immunity statute exists | N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:3-4(b)(2)(b)(i) | 1999 | Mirror (Justia) |
| New Mexico | Case law | No (case law) | Any place lawfully present | No | No | No | None — no immunity statute exists | UJI 14-5190 NMRA; State v. Horton, 1953-NMSC-044, 57 N.M. 257 | 2025 | Official |
| New York | Duty to retreat | Yes, outside the home | Dwelling only (non-aggressor) | No | No | No | None — no immunity statute exists | N.Y. Penal Law § 35.15(2)(a) | 2004 (subd. 2; para. 2(b) amended 2024) | Official |
| North Carolina | Statutory | No | Any place with a lawful right to be | Yes | Yes | Contested | None — Court of Appeals only; the N.C. Supreme Court has not resolved it | N.C. Gen. Stat. § 14-51.3(a) | 2011 | Official |
| North Dakota | Statutory | No | Any place legally allowed to be | Yes | Yes | No | None | N.D. Cent. Code § 12.1-05-07(2)(b)(2) | 2021 | Official |
| Ohio | Statutory | No | Any place lawfully has a right to be | Yes | Partial | No | State, beyond reasonable doubt at trial only | Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2901.09(B) | 2021 | Official |
| Oklahoma | Statutory | No | Any place with a right to be | Yes | Yes | Yes | Defendant, at a pretrial immunity hearing (standard not specified in the opinions reviewed) | Okla. Stat. tit. 21, § 1289.25(D) | 2025 | Official |
| Oregon | Case law | No (case law) | Any place lawfully present | No | No | No | None — no immunity statute exists | State v. Sandoval, 342 Or. 506, 156 P.3d 60 (2007) (construing ORS 161.219) | 1971 | Mirror (Justia) |
| Pennsylvania | Limited | Yes, with exceptions | Dwelling, place of work; elsewhere only when the attacker displays or uses a deadly weapon | Yes | Yes | No | None | 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 505(b)(2.3) | 2011 | Official |
| Rhode Island | Duty to retreat | Yes, with exceptions | Dwelling only, and only against enumerated breaking-and-entering offenses | Yes | No | No | None | R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-8-8; State v. Quarles, 504 A.2d 473 (R.I. 1986) | 1984 | Official |
| South Carolina | Statutory | No | Any place with a right to be, including place of business | Yes | Yes | Yes | Defendant, preponderance | S.C. Code Ann. § 16-11-440(C) | 2006 | Official |
| South Dakota | Statutory | No | Any place with a right to be | Yes | Yes | Yes | State, clear and convincing (after the defendant makes a first-look claim) | S.D. Codified Laws § 22-18-4.1 | 2022 | Official |
| Tennessee | Statutory | No | Any place with a right to be | Yes | Yes | Civil only | Civil: defendant makes the initial showing, then the burden shifts to the plaintiff. No criminal pretrial immunity. | Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-611(b)(2) | 2021 | Mirror (Justia) |
| Texas | Statutory | No | Any place with a right to be present | Yes | Yes | No | None | Tex. Penal Code § 9.32(c) | 2007 | Official |
| Utah | Statutory | No | Any place lawfully entered or remained | No | Partial | Yes | State, clear and convincing | Utah Code Ann. § 76-2-402(4)(a) | 2022 | Official |
| Vermont | Case law | No (case law) | Any place lawfully present | No | No | No | None — no immunity statute exists | State v. Hatcher, 167 Vt. 338, 706 A.2d 429 (1997); 13 V.S.A. § 2305 | 2022 | Mirror (Justia) |
| Virginia | Case law | No (case law) | Any place lawfully present, if free from fault | No | No | No | None — self-defense is common law, resolved at trial | Bailey v. Commonwealth, 200 Va. 92, 96 (1958); McCoy v. Commonwealth, 125 Va. 771, 775 (1919) | None — case law | Official |
| Washington | Case law | No (case law) | Any place with a right to be | No | Yes | No | None | State v. Redmond, 150 Wn.2d 489, 493 (2003) | None — case law | Mirror (Justia) |
| West Virginia | Statutory | No | Any place with a legal right to be | No | Partial | No | None | W. Va. Code § 55-7-22(c) | 2008 | Official |
| Wisconsin | Limited | No (case law) | Dwelling, motor vehicle, place of business (statutory); elsewhere retreat may be weighed | Yes | Partial | No | None | Wis. Stat. § 939.48(1m)(ar); State v. Wenger, 225 Wis. 2d 495, 593 N.W.2d 467 (Ct. App. 1999) | 2011 | Official |
| Wyoming | Statutory | No | Any place lawfully present | Yes | Yes | Yes | Defendant first-look, then State, preponderance (criminal); defendant, preponderance (civil) | Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-602(e) | 2018 | Official |
Download the full dataset (CSV, 50 states, 18 fields, CC BY 4.0)
What is a stand your ground law?
A stand-your-ground law removes the duty to retreat. Under the older common-law rule, a person facing a threat outside their own home had to withdraw if they could do so in complete safety before using deadly force; if they did not, the force was not justified no matter how real the danger. A stand-your-ground rule deletes that step. If you are somewhere you have a lawful right to be, are not the aggressor, and are not engaged in criminal activity, you may meet force with force.
It does not create a right to shoot. Every element of ordinary self-defense still applies — the threat must be imminent, the belief must be reasonable, and the force must be proportionate. Stand your ground removes one requirement from that list. It adds nothing.
Some states go further than simply removing the duty. Texas (Penal Code § 9.32(d)), Louisiana (§ 14:20(D)), Ohio (§ 2901.09(C)) and Mississippi bar the fact-finder from even considering whether the person could have retreated. That is a meaningfully stronger protection than silence on the subject, because it keeps the question away from the jury entirely.
How is stand your ground different from castle doctrine?
They answer different questions, and conflating them is the single most common error in coverage of this topic.
Castle doctrine is about your home. Stand your ground is about everywhere else. All 50 states protect a person in their own dwelling — not one imposes a duty to retreat from your own home — which is why “how many castle doctrine states are there” is close to a meaningless question. The 13 states in the table below are not states without home protection; they are states where the no-retreat rule stops at the property line.
| State | Status | Where you may stand your ground | Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Connecticut | Duty to retreat | Dwelling and place of work | Conn. Gen. Stat. § 53a-19(b)(1) |
| Delaware | Duty to retreat | Dwelling and place of work | 11 Del. C. § 464(e)(2)a.-b. |
| Hawaii | Duty to retreat | Dwelling and place of work | Haw. Rev. Stat. § 703-304(5)(b)(i) |
| Maine | Duty to retreat | Dwelling only | 17-A M.R.S. § 108(2)(C)(1) |
| Maryland | Duty to retreat | Dwelling only (common-law castle doctrine) | Jarvis v. State, No. 22, Sept. Term 2023 (Md. Aug. 12, 2024) |
| Massachusetts | Duty to retreat | Dwelling only | Commonwealth v. Shaffer, 367 Mass. 508 (1975); G.L. c. 278, § 8A |
| Minnesota | Duty to retreat | Dwelling only (case law) | State v. Blevins, No. A22-0432 (Minn. July 31, 2024); State v. Glowacki, 630 N.W.2d 392 (Minn. 2001) |
| Nebraska | Duty to retreat | Dwelling and place of work only | Neb. Rev. Stat. § 28-1409(4)(b) |
| New Jersey | Duty to retreat | Dwelling only | N.J. Stat. Ann. § 2C:3-4(b)(2)(b)(i) |
| New York | Duty to retreat | Dwelling only (non-aggressor) | N.Y. Penal Law § 35.15(2)(a) |
| Pennsylvania | Limited | Dwelling, place of work; elsewhere only when the attacker displays or uses a deadly weapon | 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 505(b)(2.3) |
| Rhode Island | Duty to retreat | Dwelling only, and only against enumerated breaking-and-entering offenses | R.I. Gen. Laws § 11-8-8; State v. Quarles, 504 A.2d 473 (R.I. 1986) |
| Wisconsin | Limited | Dwelling, motor vehicle, place of business (statutory); elsewhere retreat may be weighed | Wis. Stat. § 939.48(1m)(ar); State v. Wenger, 225 Wis. 2d 495, 593 N.W.2d 467 (Ct. App. 1999) |
For the home-defense side of this, see our companion 50-state reference: Castle Doctrine by State.
Does stand your ground mean you cannot be arrested?
In most states, no. A handful go out of their way to restrict arrest: Kentucky (KRS § 503.085), Oklahoma (§ 1289.25(G)) and South Carolina (§ 16-11-450(B)) each bar an arrest unless law enforcement determines there is probable cause that the force was unlawful. South Dakota’s 2022 amendment defines “criminal prosecution” to include arresting and detaining.
Everywhere else, the responding officers make an ordinary probable-cause judgment, and a stand-your-ground claim is something you raise afterward — at a pretrial hearing in the 11 states above, or at trial in the other 39. Assume you will be detained and that anything you say will be evidence.
Who has to prove what?
At trial, in the large majority of states, self-defense is a “defense” rather than an “affirmative defense”: the defendant carries a burden of production — putting enough evidence in the record to raise the issue — and the prosecution then carries the burden of disproving it beyond a reasonable doubt. Idaho writes that rule directly into statute at § 19-202A(4). Virginia is an outlier, requiring the defendant to introduce evidence sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt. Louisiana is genuinely unsettled outside of homicide cases; its Fourth Circuit said so expressly in 2025 and declined to resolve the split.
At a pretrial hearing, the allocation flips in about half the states that hold one. That is why the immunity column above matters more than the classification column.
Which states could lose stand your ground without a legislative vote?
Eight states have no stand-your-ground statute. Their no-retreat rule rests on appellate decisions and pattern jury instructions, which change by court order rather than by bill:
- California — CALCRIM No. 505; People v. King, 22 Cal. 3d 12, 21 n.3 (1978)
- Colorado — People v. Toler, 9 P.3d 341 (Colo. 2000)
- Illinois — 720 ILCS 5/7-1; IPI Criminal No. 24-25.09X
- New Mexico — UJI 14-5190 NMRA; State v. Horton, 1953-NMSC-044, 57 N.M. 257
- Oregon — State v. Sandoval, 342 Or. 506, 156 P.3d 60 (2007) (construing ORS 161.219)
- Vermont — State v. Hatcher, 167 Vt. 338, 706 A.2d 429 (1997); 13 V.S.A. § 2305
- Virginia — Bailey v. Commonwealth, 200 Va. 92, 96 (1958); McCoy v. Commonwealth, 125 Va. 771, 775 (1919)
- Washington — State v. Redmond, 150 Wn.2d 489, 493 (2003)
Two of the eight are shakier than the others. Vermont has no statute, no squarely controlling Supreme Court holding, and a model instruction that quietly dropped the retreat language. Illinois rests on a pattern instruction supported by two appellate decisions, with no Illinois Supreme Court holding on the point at all. New Mexico’s rule lives in a uniform jury instruction that the Supreme Court amended effective December 31, 2025.
What disqualifies you from claiming stand your ground?
Three conditions recur in nearly every statutory scheme, and losing any one of them collapses the protection:
- Lawful presence. The rule only reaches places you have a right to be. Trespassers do not get it.
- Not the initial aggressor. Universal. Several states restore the protection only if the aggressor withdraws and communicates the withdrawal.
- Not engaged in criminal activity. The breadth varies enormously. Texas tolerates a Class C traffic violation. Tennessee strips the protection from anyone engaged in conduct amounting to a felony or a Class A misdemeanor. Arkansas denies it to a prohibited firearm possessor outside the home or curtilage. Georgia forfeits immunity where the person used a weapon they were not lawfully allowed to carry.
Which states are we watching?
26 of the 50 carry an active watch note. These are the places where the answer on this page is most likely to change first.
| State | What we are watching |
|---|---|
| California | AB 1333 (would have narrowed Penal Code § 197) died Jan. 31, 2026; expect refiling. Watch CALCRIM 505 revisions. |
| Colorado | The 2020 amendment (SB 20-221) added § 18-1-704(3)(d), barring ‘gay/trans panic’ self-defense claims — the only recent substantive narrowing. |
| Georgia | §§ 16-3-24.2 and 51-11-9 both amended eff. May 2, 2024. SB 572 (expanding immunity to heirs) passed the Senate 3/6/2026, died when the session ended. |
| Idaho | Idaho S1298 (introduced 2/16/2026) would add a 14-day pretrial immunity hearing, clear-and-convincing on the State; still in Senate State Affairs. S1004 (2023) died the same way. |
| Illinois | No enacted change since P.A. 93-832 (2004). The no-retreat rule rests on IPI Criminal 24-25.09X — re-verify the instruction’s revision date, it updates without legislation. |
| Indiana | IC 35-41-3-2 amended by P.L. 9-2024; verify current subsection lettering before citing. |
| Louisiana | La. App. 4th Cir. left the non-homicide self-defense burden expressly unresolved in State v. Bracken (5/5/2025); intra-circuit split persists. |
| Maryland | Rule restated by the Supreme Court of Maryland in Jarvis v. State, decided Aug. 12, 2024. |
| Minnesota | State v. Blevins (Minn., July 31, 2024) extended the retreat duty to threatening with a dangerous weapon. SF 688 (introduced 1/24/2025) would add stand-your-ground plus a pretrial hearing; not enacted. |
| Mississippi | § 97-3-15 amended eff. 7/1/2023 (S.B. 2079). H.B. 117 (2025) would add criminal immunity plus a clear-and-convincing pretrial hearing; died in committee. Recurring since 2022. |
| Missouri | No statutory change since S.B. 656 (eff. 10/14/2016). Open question: whether § 563.074’s ‘absolute defense’ supports pretrial dismissal — unanswered by any Missouri appellate court. State v. Lechocki (Mo. App. E.D., Nov. 2025) broadened forcible-felony deadly force; transfer denied 2/26/2026. |
| Nebraska | LB 1269 (2024) and LB 155 (2025) would have added stand-your-ground with criminal and civil immunity; LB 155 indefinitely postponed 4/17/2026. |
| New Hampshire | Jury-instruction change: State v. Shea (N.H. Jan. 2024) held courts may not instruct juries to weigh whether the defendant could have safely left. |
| New Jersey | S1874/A4242 (2024-25) proposed home-defense criminal and civil immunity plus fee-shifting; died at session end, January 2026. |
| New Mexico | UJI 14-5190 amended by NM Supreme Court Order S-1-RCR-2025-00126, effective for cases pending or filed on or after Dec. 31, 2025. |
| New York | S1473 (2025-26) would add criminal and civil immunity plus dismissal at arraignment unless the People show non-justification by clear and convincing evidence; in Senate Codes. |
| North Carolina | State v. Allison, No. 103PA24 (N.C. Dec. 12, 2025): the § 14-51.2 presumption is rebuttable ONLY by the (c) circumstances; ‘home’ includes curtilage; contrary instructions are plain error. |
| Ohio | State v. Miree/Duncan, 2024-Ohio-5714: the 2021 stand-your-ground amendment is NOT retroactive. H.B. 498 (Ohio Self-Defense Act) pending in committee. |
| Oklahoma | Amended by Laws 2025, c. 261, § 4, emerg. eff. May 14, 2025: added ‘occupied premises’ throughout and a new defensive-display subsection (K). |
| Tennessee | §§ 39-11-611 and 39-11-622 each amended twice in 2021. SB 859 died 3/11/2025; SB 1749 still in subcommittee as of 3/24/2026. |
| Texas | SB 1730 (2025) would have expanded Chapter 83 civil immunity; passed the Senate 5/12/2025, died on the House calendar. Watch for refiling in 2027. |
| Utah | Utah H.B. 133 (2026) would bar the § 76-2-309 hearing where the force went unreported; House-amended but never enrolled as of Aug. 2026. |
| Vermont | Unsettled: no retreat statute, no square Supreme Court holding; 13 V.S.A. § 2305 last amended eff. Apr. 21, 2022. |
| Washington | Washington’s own courts site no longer serves the 2003 Redmond opinion; text verified on a mirror. |
| West Virginia | 2024 HB 5621 would have amended § 55-7-22; it passed the House 2/23/24 but died in Senate Judiciary 2/26/24. |
| Wisconsin | Unsettled: no Wisconsin Supreme Court holding on retreat; the rule rests on a 1999 Court of Appeals decision (Wenger). |
State-by-state guides
Detailed pages, each built from the state’s own statute or controlling decision: California · Colorado · Florida · Georgia · Illinois · Missouri · North Carolina · Ohio · Tennessee · Texas. More states are being added.
How this guide was made
Every state row was built by reading the operative statute or controlling appellate decision, not by summarizing other coverage. Where a state’s official code server blocks automated access — 17 of the 50 — the text was read on Cornell LII or Justia and the row is labeled “Mirror” so you can weigh it accordingly. Where a field could not be established from a primary source, it says so rather than carrying a plausible guess. Quoted statutory language is reproduced verbatim and kept short. Civil-immunity provisions were searched for in both the criminal code and the civil practice or torts title, because several states — Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Texas, Utah, West Virginia — put them outside the self-defense chapter, which is why they are so often reported as absent.
The dataset is published as a CSV under CC BY 4.0. If you use it, a link back is all we ask. Corrections are welcome and will be dated on this page.
Written and researched by James Nicholas. See how we verify carry-law data and our running log of carry-law changes. Related references: Castle Doctrine by State · Concealed Carry Reciprocity · Firearms and 2A Legal Glossary.
Common questions
How many states are stand-your-ground states?
Twenty-nine put the rule in statute and eight more reach the same result through court decisions, so thirty-seven in total let you stand your ground. Two allow it only in limited circumstances, and eleven still expect you to retreat if you can do so safely.
What is the difference between stand your ground and the castle doctrine?
The castle doctrine is about your home. Stand your ground is about everywhere else you are lawfully entitled to be. A state can have one without the other, and eleven do.
Does stand your ground stop me being charged?
No. It is a defense you raise, not a bar to a case being opened. Only eleven states let a judge end a criminal case before trial on immunity grounds.
Can I be sued even if the shooting was lawful?
In twelve states, yes — there is no civil immunity at all. Twenty-six give full protection and twelve give partial protection.