2025 AB 1333, Zbur: creates 'duty to retreat', limits justification for self defense

[Avocado Toast]

In (b)(1) when it says homicide isn't justified "When the person was outside of their residence and knew that using force likely to cause death or great bodily injury could have been avoided with complete safety by retreating" is problematic.

This only means you have to recognize or be aware that retreat would avoid the need to use deadly force. It makes no mention of being able to actually retreat or having the ability to do so. It only says that you have the knowledge of avoidance.

I have the knowledge right now that retreating is always the safest option but this bill carves out no exceptions for the inability to retreat. What if you're surrounded? Physically unable to retreat? Have a medical condition that make retreat unviable? Trapped in car with people surrounding you banging on hood and breaking glass?

IMO, this passage is a throwaway issue for the author and he'll clear up this issue to say, "and have a reasonable ability to retreat" as concession to get it through the committee.

Make no mistake - This bill is designed to neuter your CCW outside of your home. That's the sole purpose. The author only wants you to have the right of self defense, including deadly force, in your house. He's also opening the door for a prosecutor to say you could have neutralized the threat and retreated with pepper spray or a stun gun but chose not to consider lesser methods.

[R Dale]

I like how the dude says he wants to prohibit Rittenhouse type scenarios. But Kyle was retreating, in both occurrences of his shootings. He was retreating in the parking lot and he was retreating down the street.

Exactly

[R Dale]

In (b)(1) when it says homicide isn't justified "When the person was outside of their residence and knew that using force likely to cause death or great bodily injury could have been avoided with complete safety by retreating" is problematic.

This only means you have to recognize or be aware that retreat would avoid the need to use deadly force. It makes no mention of being able to actually retreat or having the ability to do so. It only says that you have the knowledge of avoidance.

I have the knowledge right now that retreating is always the safest option but this bill carves out no exceptions for the inability to retreat. What if you're surrounded? Physically unable to retreat? Have a medical condition that make retreat unviable? Trapped in car with people surrounding you banging on hood and breaking glass?

IMO, this passage is a throwaway issue for the author and he'll clear up this issue to say, "and have a reasonable ability to retreat" as concession to get it through the committee.

Make no mistake - This bill is designed to neuter your CCW outside of your home. That's the sole purpose. The author only wants you to have the right of self defense, including deadly force, in your house. He's also opening the door for a prosecutor to say you could have neutralized the threat and retreated with pepper spray or a stun gun but chose not to consider lesser methods.

Exactly

[Preston-CLB]

This idiot bill is in direct conflict with the CA Constitution Article I, Section1...

SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have
inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and
liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing
and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

-P

[Rickybillegas]

The lawyers at Everytown, Giffords and Moms never stop dreaming up new and restrictive laws to break down your rights and know it will take years if ever to wind through the court system.
All they need is willing Dem politicians in democratic states to sponsor. These bills are probably never actually written by their 'sponsors'. And the legal imprecision and ambiguity is shocking coming from
supposed educated people. One reason I think is that they care little how a law is enforced, only that they can get more laws in the books and let prosecutors make the interpretations as they go.

[Capybara]

But what do we expect from an anti-2A Commifornia tool?

[The Gleam]

Run awayyyyyyyyy!!!

Such a British thing to do...

---

[MountainLion]

This idiot bill is in direct conflict with the CA Constitution Article I, Section1...

If that were true, then existing law would have been in direct conflict with the constitution for decades. Because using deadly force to protect property has been illegal for a long time. Yet, the existing practice has never been found to be unconstitutional in court. What gives?

Very simple. Read the quote from the constitution again, this time without jumping to conclusions. You are perfectly free to protect property. The state (both its legislative system and the courts) give you all the tools you need for that. For example, civil suits: If your property rights are challenged, you are free to go to court and sue. Nowhere does the constitution say that the correct tool for protecting property has to be a gun, or in general deadly force; that was your wishful thinking.

[Rickybillegas]

California self-defense bill pulled due to 'misleading information'

Zbur pulls his bill

"He said the misleading information caused confusion and fear, leading to the bill's withdrawal once it is referred to committee Thursday and amended for clarity."

Have you ever heard any worse politician/lawyer double speak? So, if he's pulling the bill, why amend it for clarity? Why refer it to committee? Just let it die.

“I remain committed to keeping our communities safe and will continue working with law enforcement, legal experts, and public and gun safety advocates to advance smart policies that protect victims and safeguard the right to self defense. I want to thank our law enforcement partners and gun safety groups for their unwavering dedication to public safety and their hard work on this effort,” Zbur said.
Sounds like a amen

[Sgt Raven]

[OlderThanDirt]

California self-defense bill pulled due to 'misleading information'

Zbur pulls his bill

"He said the misleading information caused confusion and fear, leading to the bill's withdrawal once it is referred to committee Thursday and amended for clarity."

Have you ever heard any worse politician/lawyer double speak? So, if he's pulling the bill, why amend it for clarity? Why refer it to committee? Just let it die.

“I remain committed to keeping our communities safe and will continue working with law enforcement, legal experts, and public and gun safety advocates to advance smart policies that protect victims and safeguard the right to self defense. I want to thank our law enforcement partners and gun safety groups for their unwavering dedication to public safety and their hard work on this effort,” Zbur said.
Sounds like a amen

Ho Chi Zbur sucks dick. It’s early in the legislative session so there is plenty of time to resurrect this turd of a bill.

[Capybara]

Ho Chi Zbur sucks dick. It’s early in the legislative session so there is plenty of time to resurrect this turd of a bill.

Oh, it's coming back, and quickly. These douchebags are like Termites against the 2A, they will always try their best for complete civilian disarmament and they will never stop trying.

[DCoakley]

This bill was pulled by the Author Thursday morning.

[TrappedinCalifornia]

California self-defense bill pulled due to 'misleading information'

Zbur pulls his bill

"He said the misleading information caused confusion and fear, leading to the bill's withdrawal once it is referred to committee Thursday and amended for clarity."

Have you ever heard any worse politician/lawyer double speak? So, if he's pulling the bill, why amend it for clarity? Why refer it to committee? Just let it die.

“I remain committed to keeping our communities safe and will continue working with law enforcement, legal experts, and public and gun safety advocates to advance smart policies that protect victims and safeguard the right to self defense. I want to thank our law enforcement partners and gun safety groups for their unwavering dedication to public safety and their hard work on this effort,” Zbur said.
Sounds like a amen

Who said that public opinion doesn't impact bills in California?

Oh... You mean it'll come around again once the media attention dies down?

Never mind.

[Rickybillegas]

Kostas Moros said that the 'misinformation' that Zbur is referring to is that they actually read the bill.