California Bill Aims to Restrict Residents’ Use of Deadly Force for Property Defense
The proposed legislation indicates that homicide cannot be justified if it involves using ‘more force than was reasonably necessary.’
A bill in California that aims to limit the use of lethal force for property defense against criminals may be reviewed by a legislative committee on March 24.
The legislation, submitted in February, also clarifies that homicide is deemed unjustifiable when the force used to counteract a threat is “more than was reasonably necessary,” as detailed in the bill’s proposed language.
Additionally, it limits lethal action when an individual is “outside of their residence and knew that using force likely to cause death or significant bodily injury could have been safely avoided by retreating,” among other stipulations.
‘Protecting People From Vigilante Violence’
According to Zbur, the bill does not alter the existing “castle doctrine,” which provides additional self-defense protections within a person’s home and is located in a separate section of the Code—California Penal Code 198.5.
Related Stories
“AB 1333 was never designed to restrict a crime victim’s right to defend themselves, their family, or their home,” Zbur stated in an email to The Epoch Times on March 5.
Zbur mentioned his intent to amend the bill to eliminate any ambiguities surrounding its interpretation.
“The purpose of AB 1333 is to enhance public safety by shielding individuals from vigilante violence in public settings,” Zbur expressed. “We will be revising the bill to clarify this goal.”
Introduced on the Assembly floor on February 21, the bill is pending assignment to a committee.
A gun-control organization supporting the initiative asserts that AB 1333 establishes that a person cannot resort to killing if they have a safe and feasible option to de-escalate and withdraw.
‘Assault on Self-Defense’
State Assemblyman Tom Lackey, a Republican representing the high desert regions of Southern California, described the bill as a “complete assault on self-defense” in a social media post dated February 25.
“Consider this scenario: A violent offender breaks into your house, and you must hesitate and question whether defending your family is ‘justifiable,’” Lackey wrote. “The underlying intent behind this proposal is utterly incomprehensible.”
“This legislation is fundamentally flawed both in its purpose and tone,” Wagner remarked. “When facing a violent crime, you must retreat until your back is literally against the wall, with no options for retreat.”
“For over a decade, Sacramento leadership has effectively restrained law enforcement, making it nearly impossible for us to protect you,” Bianco stated in the video. “Now, they’re targeting your ability to defend yourself. … It’s high time we confront this insanity in Sacramento.”
The Crime Survivors Political Action Committee, supporting the election of leaders tough on crime, expressed opposition to the measure in a February 26 post on X.
