Proposed New Law Aims to Restrict When Citizens Can Use Deadly Force to Defend Themselves

A California bill aims to restrict when citizens can use deadly force to defend themselves or their property, raising concerns over self-defense rights. Critics argue the legislation weakens protections for law-abiding residents while emboldening criminals.

Key Facts:

Assembly Bill 1333, introduced by Democrat Rick Chavez Zbur, seeks to limit justifiable homicide when defending property or preventing a felony.
The bill requires retreat in certain situations if a person can safely avoid using lethal force.
Critics, including law enforcement and conservatives, say it erodes self-defense rights, particularly under the “castle doctrine.”
Zbur claims the bill does not impact home-defense laws and will be amended for clarity.
Supporters argue it prevents “vigilante violence” and encourages de-escalation outside the home.

The Rest of The Story:

Assembly Bill 1333, introduced in February, would eliminate certain legal justifications for using deadly force when defending property or preventing a crime.

The bill states that homicide is not justifiable if “more force than was reasonably necessary” is used or if a person could have safely retreated.

Critics argue the bill weakens the castle doctrine, which allows homeowners to defend themselves from intruders without the duty to retreat.

Conservative Latino group LEXIT stated the measure would “eviscerate” this protection.

However, Zbur insists the bill does not alter the castle doctrine and is intended to reduce vigilante-style violence in public spaces.

Gun-control advocates, including Everytown for Gun Safety, back the bill, claiming it clarifies that deadly force should only be used as a last resort.

Opponents, including Republican lawmakers, law enforcement officials, and county supervisors, warn that this bill would make Californians more vulnerable to criminals.

AB 1333 is another attack on our Constitutional 2nd Amendment right to self-defense. The Castle Doctrine protects law-abiding citizens, not criminals. Weakening it puts families at risk.🧵 https://t.co/hqbi2YaGLv

— Bill Essayli (@billessayli) February 25, 2025

Commentary:

This bill is a dangerous attack on law-abiding citizens’ right to defend themselves.

If someone breaks into my home at night, I don’t have the luxury of determining whether they are armed before taking action—and I shouldn’t have to.

By restricting self-defense protections, this legislation prioritizes criminals over victims.

California’s leadership has already weakened law enforcement by reducing penalties for theft and violent crimes.

Now, they’re trying to criminalize self-defense.

If this bill passes, homeowners and business owners will be forced to hesitate in life-threatening situations, giving criminals the upper hand.

State officials like Assemblyman Tom Lackey and Sheriff Chad Bianco are right to sound the alarm.

When law enforcement is hamstrung, and residents are told they must flee rather than protect themselves, what deterrent is left for criminals?

The result will be an even greater surge in violent crime.

If politicians in Sacramento were truly concerned about public safety, they would empower law-abiding citizens rather than stripping them of their rights.

Instead, this bill is part of a broader trend of pro-criminal policies that are turning California into a haven for lawlessness.

The Bottom Line:

California’s Assembly Bill 1333 threatens to weaken self-defense rights by restricting when and how citizens can protect themselves.

Supporters claim it prevents unnecessary violence, but critics warn it undermines public safety and emboldens criminals.

If passed, this bill could force law-abiding Californians to choose between their safety and legal consequences—a choice no citizen should have to make.