California’s Assembly Bill 1333 (AB 1333) is drawing fierce debate over its attempt to reshape self-defense laws in the state. Introduced by Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur (D-Los Angeles), the bill proposes a major shift by introducing a duty to retreat when outside the home. If passed, this would require individuals to escape from a threat rather than defend themselves with force – so long as an avenue for escape exists.
Defending Property Also a Factor
The bill would also remove legal justifications for defending property and limit protections for stopping a felony in progress. Critics argue that this legislation effectively prioritizes the safety of criminals over law-abiding citizens, while supporters claim it is a necessary step in preventing unnecessary violence. The potential consequences of AB 1333 could be far-reaching, changing how Californians react to life-threatening situations and how courts evaluate self-defense cases.
Are Good Samaritans at Legal Risk?
One of the most concerning elements of AB 1333 is its impact on bystanders who intervene in crimes. As Kenneth Schrupp of The Center Square explains, the bill could place legal barriers between bystanders and their ability to stop a violent act. For example, if an individual attempts to subdue an attacker who is actively harming someone, they could later face prosecution under the revised self-defense laws.
Schrupp cites the case of Daniel Penny, who restrained a man threatening passengers on a New York subway. Penny was found not guilty of criminally negligent homicide, but under AB 1333’s standards, his actions might not have been legally justified in California. The concern is that people will hesitate to intervene in dangerous situations, fearing legal repercussions even when trying to prevent harm.
Supporters See It as a Guardrail Against Vigilantism
Gun control groups have thrown their support behind AB 1333, arguing that self-defense laws are sometimes abused to justify unwarranted violence. Monisha Henley, senior vice president for Everytown for Gun Safety, has defended the bill as a necessary reform to prevent extremists from using self-defense claims as legal cover. According to Contra Costa News, Henley and other supporters claim that self-defense laws have been misused in racially motivated killings and that tighter regulations are needed to prevent escalation in public altercations.
But critics argue that this reasoning is flawed. They point out that self-defense laws apply to everyone, regardless of race, and that stripping legal protections could make innocent people more vulnerable to prosecution.
New Limits on the Right to Defend One’s Home
Beyond the duty to retreat in public, AB 1333 also restricts how force can be used inside the home. Jonathan Hatami, a Deputy District Attorney in Los Angeles County, has spoken out against the bill, warning that it weakens California’s Castle Doctrine, which allows homeowners to use force to defend themselves against intruders.
Hatami argues that the proposed law creates uncertainty about whether residents can legally defend themselves if someone unlawfully enters their home. Under AB 1333, homeowners may need to demonstrate that an intruder posed an immediate threat of bodily harm rather than simply being present inside the home. Critics fear this could create legal hesitation in life-threatening moments, endangering families instead of protecting them.
Legal Experts Say It’s a Dangerous Overcorrection
Gun rights attorney William Kirk, who runs the Washington Gun Law YouTube channel, has harshly criticized AB 1333, calling it one of the most extreme self-defense restrictions in U.S. history. In his video The State That Wants to Ban Self-Defense, Kirk warns that the bill essentially creates a legal minefield for anyone who finds themselves in a violent encounter.
Kirk highlights a key issue: the bill removes legal justification for using force when preventing a felony. Under the current law, if someone is being carjacked or assaulted, they may use force to stop the attack. AB 1333 changes that, making it easier for prosecutors to argue that a victim should have retreated rather than acted in self-defense.
Kirk also points out that if a violent criminal stops attacking, even momentarily, any continued use of force could shift the blame onto the victim. This could lead to self-defense claims being retroactively questioned in court, creating a chilling effect where Californians feel legally unsafe defending themselves.
Duty to Retreat: A Rule That Defies Reality?
The duty to retreat is one of the most controversial aspects of AB 1333. While the idea is that people should walk away from danger when possible, William from Copper Jacket TV, a pro-Second Amendment YouTube channel, argues that this expectation is unrealistic in the heat of the moment.
Victims of violent attacks do not have time to carefully evaluate whether they can escape. Most acts of violence unfold in seconds, leaving little opportunity for a person to assess their surroundings, consider legal repercussions, and determine an escape route. William from Copper Jacket TV warns that this law could encourage criminals, knowing that their victims are legally required to flee rather than fight back.
A Response to the Supreme Court?
Some analysts believe AB 1333 is a direct reaction to the Supreme Court’s 2022 ruling in NYSRPA v. Bruen, which struck down strict concealed carry restrictions in states like California. Since the decision, concealed carry permit applications in California have risen dramatically.
According to Liberty Doll, a gun rights commentator on YouTube, AB 1333 appears to be a way for lawmakers to push back against the increase in legally armed citizens. In her video State Bill to Outlaw Self-Defense, she explains that the bill makes it legally riskier for anyone to use a firearm in self-defense, even in situations where they are lawfully carrying.
Liberty Doll also notes a troubling loophole in the law. If an attacker pauses or claims to stop attacking, the defender may no longer have legal justification for continuing to use force—even if they reasonably believe the threat is still present. This could make self-defense cases extremely difficult to navigate, with legal outcomes hinging on split-second decisions that may later be questioned in court.
Lawmakers and Law Enforcement Push Back
The bill has sparked backlash from California lawmakers and law enforcement leaders. Assemblyman David Tangipa warned that AB 1333 would make it illegal for people to defend themselves, even in situations where they are clearly the victims of violence.
Meanwhile, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco has condemned the bill as another step in California’s trend of prioritizing criminals over victims. He argues that recent legislative changes – ranging from bail reform to reduced penalties for certain crimes – have already emboldened criminals, and that AB 1333 will further disempower both law enforcement and law-abiding citizens.
Supporters Claim It’s a Step Toward Reducing Gun Violence
Despite the strong opposition, AB 1333’s supporters insist that the bill is necessary to reduce violence. Moms Demand Action and Students Demand Action have both praised the bill, arguing that it will prevent situations where conflicts escalate into deadly encounters.
But critics are skeptical. They argue that restricting self-defense rights does not deter crime – it merely shifts the legal risk onto victims, making it easier for criminals to act without resistance. If potential victims are legally required to retreat, some fear it could increase violence rather than decrease it.
A Bill That Redefines Self-Defense
With AB 1333 making its way through the legislative process, the debate over self-defense rights in California is far from over. While supporters argue that the bill ensures accountability in the use of force, opponents warn that it removes essential protections for individuals defending their lives and property.
As pointed out by multiple sources, this bill could leave law-abiding citizens legally vulnerable in situations where they should have had the right to defend themselves. If passed, AB 1333 may force Californians into a dangerous legal dilemma: defend themselves and risk prosecution, or comply with the law and risk becoming a victim.
A former park ranger and wildlife conservationist, Lisa’s passion for survival started with her deep connection to nature. Raised on a small farm in northern Wisconsin, she learned how to grow her own food, raise livestock, and live off the land. Lisa writes about homesteading, natural remedies, and survival strategies. Whether it’s canning vegetables or setting up a rainwater harvesting system, Lisa’s goal is to help others live more sustainably and prepare for the unexpected.