Three weeks ago, a smug, crusading lawyer-type – Rick Chavez Zbur (D-Hollywood) – who also happens to be a rising progressive California state assemblyman, slipped a few proposals into a bill for changes to the CA penal code. Specifically to Section 197, which defines what circumstances constitute certain crimes like ‘homicide.’
Now, I’m not sure if he thought no one would notice or that the overwhelmingly progressive Democratic lunatics of the California Assembly body itself would give him cover if someone did and squawked, but Zbur surely felt cheered having such hard-core anti-Second Amendment supporters.
In any event, Harvard Law graduate that he is, Rep Zbur got his red pen out, lined through the old sections of the code that offended him, and proceeded to rewrite what would now, when his buddies voted to pass his changes, constitute ‘justifiable homicide’ in the state of California.
In Zbur’s new version, not much would any longer, including defending your home or property as was once permitted.
…AB 1333’s summary is as follows:
Existing law defines homicide as the unlawful killing of a human being, or a fetus, with or without malice aforethought, as specified. Existing law establishes certain circumstances in which homicide is justifiable, as specified.
This bill would eliminate certain circumstances under which homicide is justifiable, including, among others, in defense of a habitation or property. The bill would additionally clarify circumstances in which homicide is not justifiable, including, among others, when a person uses more force than necessary to defend against a danger.
He also took some poetic license to add an entirely new section to the code of his own, which now puts the onus on Californians with new requirements in the face of criminal and/or violent attack – they have a duty to retreat rather than defend themselves. If they must protect themselves, they are permitted by the state to use ‘only the force necessary to defend‘ against whatever the threat is. As you can imagine, the state will be the authority to determine if the force used met or exceeded the threat threshold.
…Below is the (b) section, the entirety of which is new. Zbur has added it to Section 197, and it now delineates what circumstances ARE NOT ‘justifiable homicide.’ It includes a ‘duty to retreat.’
…(b)Homicide is not justifiable when committed by a person in all of the following cases:
(1)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.
(2)When the person used more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against a danger.
(3)When the person was the assailant, engaged in mutual combat, or knowingly engaged in conduct reasonably likely to provoke a person to commit a felony or do some great bodily injury, except if either of the following circumstances apply:
(A)The person reasonably believed that they were in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury, and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily injury.
(B)In good faith, the person withdrew from the encounter with the other assailant or assailants and indicated clearly to the other assailant or assailants that the person desired to withdraw and terminated the use of any force, but the other assailant or assailants continued or resumed the use of force.
Only in the progressive brain, which has never once engaged in any sort of physical confrontation, is there a hard and fast metric for ‘using more force than necessary.’
You’ll remember that’s what Alvin Bragg’s pack of wolves tried to do to Daniel Penny.
Assemblyman Zbur was discommoded by the immediate uproar over his stealth editing and sought to calm fears that his proposed changes were never, EVER meant to ‘limit a victim’s’ right to self-defense.
Oh, no, no, no.
He was only trying to prevent hordes of little Rittenhouse wanna-bes from filling CA streets with blood and bodies.
For a ‘lawyer,’ this was an epically stupid, legally ignorant, and quite arguably defamatory statement.
It has also only served to increase public awareness, incense that same public, and heighten the intense backlash to the bill, which has stalled as legislators’ office phones and email inboxes meltdown under constant. Yet Zbur’s allies beat that Rittenhouse lie drum to death.
### AB1333 (2025-2026 Session) – Crimes: Homicide – **Introduced**: February 21, 2025, by Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur (Democrat, Los Angeles).
– **Purpose**: This bill proposes amendments to Section 197 of the California Penal Code, which defines justifiable homicide.
It aims to: – **Eliminate certain justifications** for homicide, such as defense of habitation or property against someone attempting a felony or violent entry.
– **Clarify non-justifiable circumstances**, including when a person uses more force than necessary or fails to retreat when safely possible outside the home.
– **Intent**: Supporters, including groups like Moms Demand Action, frame it as a safety measure to reduce unnecessary violence, particularly in light of increased public carry permits post-Bruen (the 2022 Supreme Court decision expanding gun rights). They argue it aligns California with states requiring de-escalation when feasible, targeting “shoot first” scenarios like the Kyle Rittenhouse case.
– **Controversy**: Critics, including law enforcement and Republican lawmakers, argue it undermines self-defense rights, especially within one’s home. They claim it forces victims to retreat from threats, potentially criminalizing defensive actions. Public backlash on platforms like X reflects fears it violates constitutional protections.
– **Status**: As of February 24, 2025, it had been read for the first time and remains in early stages. Zbur has signaled intent to amend it due to backlash, asserting it won’t affect the “Castle Doctrine” (codified separately in Penal Code 198.5), which presumes imminent danger in home defense scenarios.
Even as Zbur battens down the progressive hatches and tries to reword his disaster of a bill while keeping his ‘Moms Demand Action’ supporters happy – an impossible task – CA residents gather ever more vocal support for their cause as word spreads and daily life in CA reinforces the sheer lunacy of the changes this bill would make.
Tara and I have spoken with legislators at the Capitol on bill AB1333 and the backlash and pressure is working. The author Rick Zbur is backpedaling the bill so it’s imperative you continue to call and oppose.
Contact your legislators, starting with your Assembly person first.… pic.twitter.com/GtIDGGwnX2— Denise Aguilar (@InformedMama209) March 10, 2025
The Riverside County Sheriff, Chad Blanco, came out firmly against AB1333 in a video last week to his followers. He wasn’t mincing any words.
NOW THEY’RE COMING AFTER YOU AND YOUR ABILITY TO PROTECT YOURSELF
Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco has released a video on social media opposing a recently introduced bill in the California State Assembly, claiming it would “make self-defense against criminals illegal.”
“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. Now, they’re coming after you and your ability to protect yourself,” Bianco said.
Assembly Bill 1333, introduced by Assemblymember Rick Zbur of Santa Monica on Feb. 21, aims to “eliminate certain circumstances under which homicide is justifiable, including, among others, in defense of a habitation or property,” according to the California Legislative Information website. The bill further specifies that homicide is “not justifiable when a person uses more force than necessary to defend against a danger.”
Bianco took to social media to express his concerns, stating the bill would “tie the hands of residents while coddling criminals.” He warned, “If a criminal attacks you or your family and you defend yourself and that criminal dies as a result of his criminal behavior, you could be arrested and charged for murder.“
Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco has issued a warning regarding the potential passage of California Bill AB1333. He stated that if the bill is approved, Californians may no longer be able to legally protect themselves in certain situations. Bianco explained that under this… pic.twitter.com/webogOrwDf
— Zerx (@Zerxisk) March 8, 2025
The circumstances of life in CA are not helping Zbur make his case for a kinder, gentler method of running away from an assault, abandoning your home and belongings – or your family – to an imminent threat, or coddling criminals in general.
In Sacramento, which, last I checked, was the state capital, there was a perfect example two weeks ago of the disconnect between some police departments, policy, and the insane person bashing your front door in with a 4X4 (after trying a window without the post first) at zero dark thirty.
What to you and I might seem a ‘violent attack’ where the fellow was lucky not to be shot repeatedly (the young man inside wrestled the post out of the assailant’s hands as it came through the crushed and collapsed mailbox slot) was to the Sacramento police department, simple ‘vandalism.’
Take a couple of minutes to watch this.
To Asm Zbur and the Sacramento police, who couldn’t be bothered, all’s well that end’s well, right? The appropriate force was used on the frisky intruder.
They are unconcerned with the possibilities inherent in the opposite result. What if the young guy wasn’t home, had been struck by, or unable to wrest the post away?
What would have happened? When you see how destroyed their door was, one last kick and the lunatic was through it.
What then, Sacramento cops, Asm Zbur?
If someone breaks into your home at night, and it’s pitch black, taking the time to find out if they’re armed or not could cost you your life.
AB1333 is a deadly threat to the lives of California citizens.
— Michael Oxford – AKA The Santa Cruz Mountain Goat (@SCMountainGoat) March 2, 2025
This very scenario happens repeatedly night after night in communities across the state and not always with such lucky results. One black community newspaper pointed this out in a terrific op-ed going after the proposed changes that criminalize self-defense.
California’s AB 1333: Protecting Intruders, Endangering Homeowners and Families
Imagine this: you hear a crash downstairs in the middle of the night, and your heart races as you realize someone has broken into your home. Worse yet, they’re armed. In that terrifying moment, your instinct is to protect yourself and your family. But under California’s newly proposed Assembly Bill 1333, you may have to pause and ask yourself—will I go to prison for defending my home?
AB 1333, introduced by Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur, a Democrat from the 51st Assembly District, proposes significant changes to California’s self-defense laws, especially concerning justifiable homicide. The bill aims to eliminate legal protections for homeowners who use deadly force to protect themselves, their families, and their property. By requiring homeowners to demonstrate that they had “no other option” but to resort to lethal force, this legislation effectively shifts the burden from criminals to law-abiding citizens.
A Dangerous Shift in Self-Defense Laws
For decades, the Castle Doctrine has protected Californians by recognizing that a person’s home is their ultimate line of defense. If someone unlawfully enters your home, the law assumes you have the right to defend yourself without hesitation. AB 1333 threatens that right by imposing a requirement for homeowners to demonstrate that using force was necessary—and possibly even that they attempted to retreat beforehand.
This is not just misguided—it’s dangerous. In real-life home invasion situations, every second counts. Asking a homeowner to pause and consider whether the force they use will stand up in court could mean the difference between life and death. Even worse, it sends a message to criminals that the law is on their side side.Empowering the Criminals, Disarming the Victims
One of the most alarming aspects of AB 1333 is that it grants intruders more rights than homeowners. Should a homeowner be required to retreat if a criminal breaks into their home armed with a weapon? Should they be forced to prove in court that they had “no alternative” but to protect themselves? This bill emboldens intruders by suggesting that homeowners are legally vulnerable if they defend themselves.
Assemblyman Zbur makes sure there’s ‘protection’ when he needs it from ‘threatening’ individuals when he sees them near him.
Why? They shouldn’t be allowed to stand their ground. They should retreat, right? Just like AB1333? https://t.co/w67jCNLCqA pic.twitter.com/FwEcMs6dkF
— Minister of PropaganDUH Elect (@majorkingkong) March 12, 2025
Hypocrisy is the progressive way.
Stand your ground, California.
