“Be not afraid of the Pistols you have sent me. They may be necessary Implements of self Defense tho’ I dare say I shall never have Occasion to use them.” – James Iredell, Former Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States
My fellow Californians, Assembly Bill 1333 (AB-1333), proposed by Assembly Member Rick Chavez Zbur, presents a clear threat to our fundamental right to self-defense. In an attempt to rewrite the justifiable homicide laws that govern our rights to self-preservation in situations of imminent danger, this bill would eliminate the protections we retain in cases of self-defense, even within our homes and property, forcing duties of retreat on victims of crime, with non-compliance unleashing the full weight of prosecutors against victims of violence.
While those who propose the bill may aim to target “vigilantes” or put a stop to unnecessary violence, they fail to recognize that, upon closer examination, this change in law would shift the balance of power towards criminals while putting law-abiding citizens at risk. Conservatives and liberals alike have a stake in opposing AB-1333, a law that would disproportionately harm lower-income communities while removing your basic God-given right to self-defense.
In essence, the goal of AB-1333 is to limit the standards for claims of lethal force in justifiable self-defense. The bill would directly “eliminate certain circumstances under which homicide is justifiable, including in defense of a habitation or property.” (CA LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST)
For context, this would mean that homeowners who use lethal force against violent intruders would lose protections that have safeguarded Californians’ right to self-defense for generations.
Additionally, AB-1333 would impose a legal “duty to retreat” on Californians facing attacks in public—a sharp departure from our state’s current self-defense doctrine—and invite Monday-morning quarterbacking of split-second decisions made under life-threatening duress.
In response to backlash from the bill, Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur insisted that AB-1333 “was never intended to limit a crime victim’s right to defend yourself, your family, or home,” instead aiming to prevent people from “provoking violence and claiming self-defense after the fact.” Zbur went on to reference the case of Kyle Rittenhouse as justification for his bill. However, I’m at a loss for what Zbur means by this, considering that Rittenhouse’s case ended in an acquittal, with the court determining he had a legitimate self-defense claim, accompanied by major political backlash against the prosecutor who pushed for charges in the Rittenhouse case. Even Moms Demand Action, a notorious gun control group that supported the bill, admitted that it is an “anti-Stand Your Ground” measure. They attempted to partially address backlash against the bill, claiming it “does not impact the ‘Castle Doctrine’” and only requires de-escalation if possible. However, I disagree. The bill’s vague and poor wording provides for the removal of existing justifications for self-defense, with Sheriff Kain of Tehama County pointing out that the bill does “make it illegal to defend yourself in your own home.”
Why must Californians second-guess their right to defend themselves for fear of prosecution when acting against violent criminals?
To truly understand how AB-1333 could potentially harm Californians, it’s important to examine past incidents of self-defense in the state and consider how this bill might have changed their outcomes.
Take the example of Craig Cope, who, while working at his Norco liquor store, faced an attempted robbery by armed gunmen. The elderly shopkeeper defended himself by quickly moving into action and firing at the criminals with his shotgun. Under AB-1333, prosecutors could examine whether Cope used “more force than necessary” or had some hypothetical safe avenue to retreat. A jury may be asked to consider whether, in what was potentially a life-or-death decision, Cope should’ve ducked or run rather than shoot, as AB-1333 seeks to put an additional burden on Californians to “prove that they had no other option but to use deadly force”—and failure to meet this burden of proof could result in criminal prosecution for excessive use of force.
Another recent incident is the case of a 77-year-old homeowner who opened fire against three individuals who broke into his property, killing an intruder while holding another at gunpoint until police arrived (which, in Oakland, is notoriously slow—but that’s a conversation for another day). Police initially arrested the homeowner on suspicion of murder, jailing him without bail. The homeowner’s knowledgeable use of his Fifth Amendment rights and insistence on acting in self-defense eventually led to his release. However, this incident proves that Californian law enforcement does not hesitate to charge first and ask questions later in self-defense cases, and this homeowner’s legal peril would have been exacerbated by a bill explicitly removing “defense of habitation” as justification for self-defense.
Unfortunately, Assemblyman Zbur’s attempts are not the first to erode our inherent right to self-defense by California lawmakers and judicial activists.
It’s important to establish that California has a long history of preserving the right to self-defense. Over a century ago, the California Supreme Court found in People v. Hecker (1895) that Californians have “no duty to retreat.” The court affirmed that when an individual was victim to a crime under deadly circumstances, the law “does not weigh in too nice scales” the exact measures of their response. This sentiment was echoed by the California appellate court in People v. Collins (1961), which held that one “may stand his ground and defend himself by the use of all force…which would appear necessary to a reasonable person in the same situation…even though the assailed person might more easily have gained safety by flight.”
The court also established clear case law, and rightly so, for when deadly force cannot be justified. In People v. Ceballos (1974), the court found that a San Anselmo man who set loaded trap guns was guilty of assault with a deadly weapon after a teenage burglar was injured. The court held that one cannot shoot a fleeing burglar in the back or use lethal booby-traps; self-defense is justified only to prevent imminent deadly harm or forcible violent felonies.
The legal limits for when deadly force is justifiable already exist, clearly established by the above-mentioned case law. Ceballos clearly defines these limits while still recognizing Castle Doctrine. AB-1333, on the other hand, goes much further, removing “defense of habitation” from Penal Code §197.
In practical, real-world situations, AB-1333 represents a historic rollback of Californians’ self-defense rights. It seeks to codify a duty to retreat, a move the California legislature has never previously legislated. This bill does not serve the interests of law-abiding citizens; rather, it emboldens prosecutors. What purpose does it serve to throw good people into the gray area of determining whether they are criminals?
Now is the time for everyday Californians to present a united front against this bill. Under no circumstances can we allow our right to self-defense to be stripped away. In the proud history of our state, our forefathers have often risen to challenge laws that threaten our fundamental rights. The right to defend oneself is “the first law of nature,” and no legislator should ever threaten to take that away. I hope you’ll join me in opposing this bill—our lives and liberties may well depend on it.
Author’s Note:
I wrote this piece back on March 8th, originally as a part of an effort with friends and members of both the conservative and liberal gun communities of California to organize against AB-1333. I’m happy to say we’ve been successful in our efforts. As of today Assemblymember Zbur has confirmed that he will withdraw this ridiculous piece of legislation. AB-1333 was not a bill to protect Californians, it was a bill that would’ve hindered everyday people like you and me, and given criminals more leeway to act without fear of resistance.
Assemblymember Zbur claims he was trying to close a loophole. Contrary to the philosophy of many politicians however I was raised in a household where what you do matters more than what you say, his conduct following the outrage of thousands of Californians, and his retraction, demonstrates a simple truth: this bill was indefensible.
A lot of people have lost faith in our political system, especially as ever-more polarizing politicians rise on both the left and right to key positions of national leadership. Let this small moment be an example that your voice does indeed matter. It doesn’t matter if you’re a progressive liberal or traditional conservative, organize, and fight for what you believe in, you can win. Common sense can prevail through the noise.
Never stay silent.
