California lawmakers have introduced AB 1333, a bill that seeks to change the way self-defense is handled under state law. Proposed by Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur (D-Los Angeles), the bill would eliminate certain justifications for using force, including in defense of property and habitation.
It also introduces a “duty to retreat” outside the home, meaning that if someone is attacked in a public space and has a way to escape, they must take that option instead of using force.
Critics argue that the bill shifts the law in favor of criminals, making it harder for ordinary citizens to defend themselves without facing legal consequences.
The End of Crime-Stopping Protections
According to an article by Kenneth Schrupp of The Center Square, AB 1333 removes legal protections for individuals who intervene in crimes to stop violent offenders. If passed, the law could increase the legal risks for bystanders attempting to help others in dangerous situations.
Schrupp notes that cases like Daniel Penny’s in New York, where Penny was found not guilty of criminally negligent homicide after restraining a threatening individual, could have turned out very differently under California’s proposed law. This raises an important question: Does this bill discourage good Samaritans from stepping in to prevent violence?
A Clear Political Divide
The bill has received strong backing from gun control advocates. One of them is Everytown for Gun Safety, a group that argues white supremacists have exploited self-defense laws to justify unnecessary killings. In a statement, Monisha Henley, senior vice president for government affairs at Everytown, claimed the legislation was necessary to prevent extremists from using self-defense claims as legal cover for unjustified shootings.
However, critics argue that this framing wrongly assumes that self-defense laws are misused primarily for racial reasons when, in reality, they apply to all law-abiding citizens equally.
The Lawmaker’s Justification
Assemblymember Rick Zbur, the bill’s sponsor, defended AB 1333, claiming it is not meant to restrict a victim’s ability to protect themselves.
According to Contra Costa News, Zbur stated that the law is aimed at preventing vigilante violence, specifically referencing Kyle Rittenhouse as an example of someone who provoked violence and later claimed self-defense. He promised amendments to clarify the bill’s intent, but many remain skeptical that such changes would actually resolve concerns about restricting the rights of crime victims.
A Backlash from Lawmakers and Law Enforcement
Criticism of AB 1333 has come from several California lawmakers, who have labeled it an attack on self-defense rights. Assemblyman Tom Lackey called the bill “a complete assault on self-defense,” stating that it forces victims of violent crime to hesitate and second-guess their right to act in defense of their families.
Assemblymember David Tangipa voiced similar concerns, writing on X (formerly Twitter) that the bill “makes it illegal to defend yourself in your own home.” Meanwhile, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco released a statement condemning the bill as part of an ongoing trend of coddling criminals while tying the hands of both law enforcement and law-abiding citizens.
What the Bill Actually Changes
A close look at AB 1333’s text reveals major shifts in how homicide is defined in self-defense cases. The bill removes protections for using deadly force to apprehend a felon and introduces new legal requirements that force a defender to prove that they had no other option but to retreat.
Additionally, if an attacker stops their aggression but is then met with continued force from the victim, the victim could be charged with homicide. William from the Copper Jacket TV YouTube channel, which focuses on gun rights, describes the bill as the most extreme anti-self-defense law ever introduced in California, warning that it will force victims to think like lawyers while under attack – a dangerous and unrealistic expectation.
A “Duty to Retreat” in a Split-Second Decision
The duty to retreat is at the heart of the controversy. Under the bill’s language, if a victim has a way to escape safely, they must take it instead of using force. However, as Copper Jacket TV pointed out, assessing an escape route in the middle of an attack is often impossible. In a split-second moment, victims won’t have time to evaluate their surroundings or map out an exit strategy – they will simply react.
The concern is that prosecutors will later scrutinize every self-defense case and argue that a victim “could have retreated” instead of defending themselves.
A Chilling Effect on Home Defense
One of the most controversial aspects of AB 1333 is how it affects self-defense in one’s own home. Jonathan Hatami, Deputy District Attorney in Los Angeles County, raised concerns about how the bill removes protections for defending one’s home or property.
Hatami warned that under this law, if a criminal enters your home, you may have to retreat instead of using force, potentially putting families at risk. Critics argue that if a home is not a safe place to defend oneself, then where is?
A Response to the Supreme Court’s Bruen Decision?
Many observers see AB 1333 as a response to the 2022 Supreme Court case NYSRPA v. Bruen, which struck down restrictive concealed carry laws in states like California. Since that ruling, the number of concealed carry permit applications in California has skyrocketed.
According to Copper Jacket TV, AB 1333 appears to be an attempt to counteract this increase in legally armed citizens by making it harder for them to use force in self-defense.
Supporters See It as a Gun Violence Solution
Despite the fierce opposition, supporters of AB 1333 claim that tightening self-defense laws is necessary to reduce gun violence. California chapters of Moms Demand Action and Students Demand Action praised the bill, calling it a way to prevent unnecessary confrontations.
A statement from Everytown for Gun Safety argued that the bill is designed to prevent the escalation of violence in public spaces, ensuring that people cannot legally kill someone if they have a way to walk away from the situation safely.
A Step Too Far?
While public safety is a legitimate concern, critics of AB 1333 argue that the bill goes too far in restricting a basic human right – the right to self-defense. The Center Square, Contra Costa News, Copper Jacket TV, and multiple California lawmakers have all expressed alarm at how the bill appears to shift legal protections away from crime victims and toward criminals. If passed, Californians could find themselves facing legal battles simply for choosing to defend their own lives.
A Battle Over Basic Rights
As AB 1333 moves forward, it is clear that the debate over self-defense laws in California is far from over. Supporters argue that tightening regulations will prevent unnecessary violence, while opponents warn that it will lead to more crime, not less. Whether or not the bill passes, it is already serving as a rallying point for those who believe that the right to protect oneself should never be up for debate.
