California Bill Would Limit Residents’ Ability to Use Deadly Force to Defend Their Property

The legislation states homicide is not justifiable when using ‘more force than was reasonably necessary.’

Assemblyman Rick Chavez Zbur speaks at a press conference on April 30, 2024. Travis Gillmore/The Epoch Times

A California bill that would restrict the use of lethal force to defend people’s property from criminals could be heard by a legislative committee March 24.

Assembly Bill 1333, by Assemblyman Rick Chavez Zbur, a Democrat representing Santa Monica, would eliminate certain circumstances under which homicide is justifiable, including if the person was defending a residence or property or trying to prevent someone from committing a felony.

The legislation, introduced in February, also states homicide is not justifiable when “more force than was reasonably necessary” was used to defend against danger, according to the bill’s proposed text.

In addition, it restricts lethal action when a person is “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,” among other restrictions.

LEXIT, a group representing the conservative Latino movement in the United States, said the bill “would eviscerate the ‘castle doctrine,’ meaning that you could no longer protect your property,” according to a video shared on March 1 on the social media group X by the group.

The castle doctrine, also called the “stand your ground” common law principle, states that a person is justified in the use of deadly force to protect his or her home and its inhabitants from intruders, without being obliged to retreat.

‘Protecting People From Vigilante Violence’

According to Zbur, the bill does not change the long-standing “castle doctrine,” which gives people extra self-defense protections in their home, and which exists in a different part of the Code—California Penal Code 198.5.

“AB 1333 was never intended to limit a crime victim’s right to defend themselves, their families, or their homes,” Zbur told The Epoch Times in an email on March 5.

Zbur said he already plans to amend the legislation to clear up any confusion that might have been raised about it.

“The [goal] of AB 1333 is to promote public safety by protecting people from vigilante violence in public places,” Zbur said. “We will be amending the bill to make this crystal clear.”

The legislation was introduced on the Assembly floor on Feb. 21 and is waiting to be assigned a committee.

According to a gun-control group backing the measure, AB 1333 would make it clear that a person cannot kill someone if he or she has a safe and easy way to de-escalate and leave.

“The legislation explicitly underscores that Californians must avoid resorting to fatal actions when they have the opportunity to de-escalate or disengage from a conflict outside their homes, with the aim of preventing violent confrontations,” Everytown for Gun Safety and its affiliated groups stated in a fact sheet about AB 1333.

In October 2024, the group reported that violence involving firearms costs California $41.9 billion each year, of which $1.1 billion is paid by taxpayers.

‘Assault on Self-Defense’

State Assemblyman Tom Lackey, a Republican who represents Southern California’s high desert communities, said the bill was a “complete assault on self-defense” in a social media post Feb. 25.

“Imagine this: A violent criminal breaks into your home, and you have to second-guess whether defending your family is ‘justifiable,’” Lackey wrote in the post. “The misguided energy behind this proposal is beyond comprehension.”

Orange County Supervisor Don Wagner said March 5 on the radio show “The Morning Answer” that the bill represented almost “everything that’s wrong with Sacramento.”

“This one is two things: It is horrific on its face in terms of what it tries to do and it’s utterly tone-deaf,” Wagner said. “If you are facing a violent crime, you have now got to retreat until literally your back is against the wall and you can no longer retreat.”

Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco also posted a video voicing his concerns about the measure on Feb. 26.

“For more than a decade, the leadership in Sacramento has literally tied the hands of law enforcement and made it almost impossible for us to protect you,” Bianco said in the video. “Now, they’re coming after you and your ability to protect yourself. ... It is time we stand up to this insanity in Sacramento.”

Crime Survivors Political Action Committee, a group that supports electing leaders who are tough on crime, said it opposed the measure in a post on X on Feb. 26.