Common Sense Prevailed: California Democrat Withdraws Anti-Self-Defense Bill AB 1333 After Public Backlash – Blames Misinformation

Common sense has prevailed after a Californian Democrat who sponsored a bill that essentially banned self-defense during a home invasion bent the knee and withdrew his proposal. The bill received almost unanimous opposition from Californian law enforcement, Republican lawmakers, victims of crimes, and the pro-2A gun lobby National Rifle Association (NRA).

Assemblyman Rick Zbur (D-Los Angeles) sponsored AB 1333 which sought to limit circumstances under which homicide was justifiable during a home invasion.

“This bill would eliminate certain circumstances under which homicide is justifiable…[e.g.] in defense of a habitation or property.” It also intended to “clarify circumstances in which homicide is not justifiable …[e.g.] when a person uses more force than necessary to defend against a danger.”

Its revised version also required homeowners to exhaust “every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily injury. Commonsense Californians and netizens on social media pointed out that the bill essentially banned self-defense and obligated the homeowner to retreat instead of creating a deterrent to home invasion.

However, Assemblyman Zbur contradicted that observation claiming that it intends to prevent “wannabe vigilantes like Kyle Rittenhouse from provoking violence and claiming self-defense.” 

Ironically, the bill did not hold the home invaders responsible for creating a dangerous situation. Instead, it focused on the homeowner’s reaction, putting them at risk of severe legal consequences for defending their property. Assemblyman Tom Lackey (R-Palmdale) noted that the bill would leave homeowners second-guessing “whether defending your family is ‘justifiable.’”

Californian sheriffs also criticized the bill, adding to the mounting pressure to drop the proposed legislation. Butte County Sheriff Kory Honea said AB 1333 would “negatively impact a person’s inalienable right to defend themselves or others against attack” and imposes a “subjective standard for people who legitimately fear for their lives.”

Similarly, Tehama County Sheriff Dave Kain said that telling people “they can’t protect themselves in their own home against a criminal element is probably one of the most ridiculous things.”

However, the radical anti-gun group Moms Demand Action supported the bill claiming it “promotes safe de-escalation” in “conflicts outside the home.” 

Ironically, the confused coven of anti-2A mombies could not decipher that the bill targeted self-defense situations at home and not outside. Additionally, women’s use of a weapon in self-defense during a violent crime reduces the possibility of a completed rape and the probability of an injury to zero. Similarly, over 1 million crimes are prevented annually when victims brandish a firearm, which could be considered assault with a deadly weapon in some circumstances. Based on the bill’s vague language, it also cannot be ruled out that brandishing a firearm at an invader could be considered excessive force.

Meanwhile, California also has more than a fair share of ridiculous anti-gun laws which make self-defense outside the home almost impossible. Restricting self-defense at home would be the final step in taking away all citizens’ rights to defend themselves, essentially turning them into sitting ducks for violent armed criminals. Nevertheless, Assemblyman Zbur announced on Wednesday that he would withdraw the controversial bill following a public backlash, which he termed as “misleading information.”

“Unfortunately, misleading information has fueled fear and confusion about the bill,” he said. “I have decided to withdraw AB 1333 from further consideration, once it is referred to [the] committee on Thursday and has been amended to clarify items that caused confusion.”