California legislators introduce a shocking new bill that would force crime victims to retreat before defending themselves and could classify justified self-defense actions as homicide.
Key Takeaways
- California Assembly Bill 1333 would mandate retreat before self-defense and eliminate protections for using lethal force to stop crimes or protect property.
- The bill would redefine justifiable homicide, potentially criminalizing actions taken in defense of one’s home even when force isn’t excessive.
- Supporters claim the bill prevents extremists from exploiting self-defense laws, while critics argue it endangers law-abiding citizens while emboldening criminals.
- Bystanders intervening to stop crimes could face higher legal risks, effectively discouraging citizens from helping others in danger.
- The legislation comes amid rising crime rates in California, raising questions about the timing and motivation behind restricting self-defense rights.
Sacramento’s Latest Attack on Self-Defense Rights
In a direct assault on Californians’ constitutional rights, Assemblyman Rick Chavez Zbur has introduced AB-1333, legislation that would fundamentally undermine citizens’ ability to defend themselves, their families, and their property. The bill aims to amend Section 197 of the California Penal Code by imposing a “duty to retreat” before using force in self-defense, eliminating long-standing protections for using lethal force to apprehend felons or maintain peace, and redefining what qualifies as justifiable homicide. If passed, citizens could face homicide charges for defending themselves if prosecutors later determine retreat was theoretically possible.
The bill’s backers include Everytown for Gun Safety, a gun control advocacy group with close ties to anti-Second Amendment politicians. Their senior director, Monisha Henley, praised the legislation while making the extraordinary claim that it’s necessary to stop “white supremacists” from abusing self-defense laws. This inflammatory rhetoric has become standard fare from those seeking to dismantle constitutional protections, substituting emotional appeals for factual analysis of how such laws would impact everyday citizens facing genuine threats.
Legal Experts Sound the Alarm
Civil liberties attorney Laura Powell has issued a stark warning about the bill’s implications, noting it “would make it more difficult for victims of crime to claim self-defense” while eliminating “the use of deadly force for protection of the home and property.” This radical redefinition would leave Californians with fewer options when confronted by intruders or attackers, effectively prioritizing criminals’ safety over that of law-abiding citizens. The timing couldn’t be worse, as many California communities continue to struggle with rising crime rates following years of soft-on-crime policies.
“Assemblymember Zhur of Los Angeles County introduced AB1333, which would make it more difficult for victims of crime to claim self defense. It eliminates the use of deadly force for protection of the home and property and imposes a slew of other limitations.” – Laura Powell
Perhaps most disturbing is the provision that could allow the initial instigators of violence to claim self-defense if they believe they faced imminent death after exhausting escape options. This creates a perverse scenario where someone who starts a violent confrontation could legally justify killing another person if they felt trapped after initiating the violence. Such scenarios reveal the bill’s foundational flaws and raise serious questions about whether its drafters understand the real-world implications of undermining self-defense rights.
Constitutional Questions and Community Impact
Critics rightfully argue that AB-1333 is both constitutionally and morally indefensible. The right to self-defense is recognized as fundamental across American jurisprudence, with the Supreme Court consistently affirming that citizens don’t forfeit their right to protect themselves simply because government services like police might eventually respond. In California, where law enforcement response times can vary dramatically between urban and rural areas, forcing citizens to retreat rather than stand their ground could have deadly consequences.
“White supremacists and other extremists have hidden behind self-defense laws to fire a gun and turn any conflict into a death sentence.” – Monisha Henley
This legislation would also severely impact bystander intervention, creating additional legal risks for Good Samaritans who step in to stop active crimes or protect vulnerable victims. Under the new standards, even reasonable force used to protect others could be scrutinized and potentially criminalized after the fact by progressive prosecutors eager to make examples of citizens who dare defend themselves or others. The bill’s provisions limiting force to what is “reasonably necessary” creates a dangerous legal gray area that puts defenders at risk of second-guessing those who weren’t facing the threat.
A Clear Pattern of Rights Restriction
AB-1333 follows a disturbing pattern in California where legislators consistently prioritize criminals’ rights over victims’ safety. While thousands of convicted felons have been released early from state prisons and theft below $950 has been effectively decriminalized, law-abiding citizens now face new restrictions on their ability to protect themselves from the very criminals these policies have emboldened. This isn’t coincidental but rather represents a coordinated effort to fundamentally transform the relationship between citizens and the state, making Californians increasingly dependent on government for protection it often fails to provide.
Unlike communities like Alaska’s Susitna Valley, where armed citizens contribute meaningfully to public safety, California’s approach seems designed to create vulnerability rather than resilience. There’s no evidence of an epidemic of homeowners using excessive force against intruders that would justify such dramatic legal changes. Instead, this bill appears driven by ideological commitments rather than public safety concerns, sacrificing constitutional protections on the altar of progressive policy preferences that consistently fail to deliver the security they promise.
Sources:
- California bill restricts self-defense, ends crime-stopping protection, mandates ‘retreat’
- California Legislator Introduces Bill to Gut Self-Defense Protections for Citizens
