People are up in arms following the introduction of a controversial new bill in California by Democratic Assemblyman and Caucus Chair Rick Chavez Zbur. The legislation, known as AB 1333, raises serious concerns by proposing significant limitations on a homeowner’s right to self-defense. Zbur’s controversial bill has sparked wide-reaching outrage, drawing criticism for what many see as an assault on the fundamental right to protect oneself from intruders.
AB 1333 was never intended to limit a crime victim’s right to defend yourself, your family, or home. The goal is to prevent wannabe vigilantes like Kyle Rittenhouse from provoking violence & claiming self defense after the fact. We will amend the bill to make this crystal clear.
— Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur (@AsmRickZbur) February 25, 2025
California, currently a ‘stand your ground’ state, allows residents to defend their homes and loved ones without the obligation to retreat. However, AB 1333 challenges this principle by criminalizing forms of self-defense traditionally considered justified. According to California Legislative Information, the bill “would eliminate certain circumstances under which homicide is justifiable, including, among others, in defense of a habitation or property.” Furthermore, it seeks to “clarify circumstances in which homicide is not justifiable, including, among others, when a person uses more force than necessary to defend against a danger.”
Critics argue that this move undermines the Second Amendment, as it hampers the ability of law-abiding citizens to act swiftly in potentially life-threatening situations. The bill suggests expanding the scope of what counts as a crime of homicide, thereby creating what the state describes as a “state-mandated local program.” This expansion could place unnecessary legal burdens on individuals who act in self-defense during emergencies. Opponents claim that this measure serves to erode fundamental rights by shifting the focus away from intruders’ accountability and towards criminalizing defensive actions.
You should feel safe in your own home! I will keep calling out California crazy, like AB 1333. pic.twitter.com/3HLzbH7W36
— Assemblyman David Tangipa (@AsmTangipa) March 1, 2025
In a bid to defend his proposal amid the backlash, Zbur invoked the case of Kyle Rittenhouse, trying to address his critics. “AB 1333 was never intended to limit a crime victim’s right to defend yourself, your family, or home,” Zbur remarked. “The goal is to prevent wannabe vigilantes like Kyle Rittenhouse from provoking violence & claiming self-defense after the fact. We will amend the bill to make this crystal clear.”
However, these assurances did little to placate his opponents. Republican California Assemblyman David Tangipa, among others, lashed out against what he sees as a reckless legislative move. Speaking on the Ray Appleton show, Tangipa questioned the logic behind the bill, stating, “How do you know if a robber or burglar is intending to kill?”
Assemblyman Zbur,
You can amend your anti-self-defense bill by deleting it completely.
NO ONE wants or needs YOU or state government to tell ANY person how they can behave when they or someone around them is immediately threatened by harm.
YOU are welcome to run away or… https://t.co/QwAIDN54UV
— Houman David Hemmati, MD, PhD (@houmanhemmati) February 25, 2025
The implications of AB 1333 have ignited fierce debate over the rights of individuals to bear arms and self-defend, spotlighting the tensions between proposed legislative changes and constitutional freedoms. The Second Amendment underscores the right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, including self-defense and safeguarding one’s home. It stands as a bastion against efforts perceived to limit personal protections—like those introduced in Zbur’s bill.