California Democratic lawmakers recently introduced a new proposal, AB 1333, which significantly weakens the provisions of justifiable defense in order to protect the lives of robbers. Lawyer Liu Longzhu warned that this proposal is even more dangerous than Proposition 47, as it could lead to a surge in home invasions and sexual assault cases, further deteriorating public safety in California.
The San Bernardino County Sheriff’s Department in Southern California reported that on the evening of March 4th (Tuesday), a group of thugs broke into a residence to commit a robbery and were met with gunfire by the homeowner, resulting in at least one fatality and one serious injury, after which the robbers fled. However, if AB 1333 is passed, this Southern California homeowner may no longer be considered acting in self-defense and could face charges of excessive force.
AB 1333, proposed by Los Angeles Councilman Rick Zbur on February 21st, aims to amend Penal Code Section 197 in California, making significant changes and deletions to provisions regarding justifiable defense, including the right to use force in defense of one’s residence, property, and in making a lawful arrest.
Lawyer Liu Longzhu told Epoch Times that the new proposal brings about significant changes. Victims must now flee when faced with robbers, even in their own homes, and are prohibited from engaging in physical combat. Despite American citizens having the constitutional right to self-defense, they are not allowed to retaliate immediately. He pointed out that this proposal distorts right and wrong, making safeguarding personal safety illegal and turning into a legal farce.
He believes that forcing victims to flee actually increases the danger, as turning one’s back on the thugs to retreat undoubtedly makes them an easier target for attack. From this perspective, this provision is extremely absurd, as it not only fails to safeguard individuals but also puts victims in even greater danger.
Additionally, victims are not allowed to shoot first; they must be certain that their lives are in imminent danger before opening fire, or they may face legal consequences.
Lawyer Liu stated that if this proposal passes, when faced with robbers breaking into their homes, victims would have to ask, “Are you here to rob or to kill?” If the robber answers, “I am here to rob,” then the victim cannot defend themselves but must let the robber ransack their home.
He criticized the proposal as absurd, as it only allows victims to defend themselves after being injured or killed by the robbers, essentially depriving them of their right to self-defense and forcing the innocent to choose between being imprisoned, killed, or seriously injured.
Lawyer Liu emphasized that if this proposal is approved, it would render the Second Amendment’s right to bear arms meaningless, stripping citizens of their right to self-defense and turning the idea of self-defense with a firearm into a legal joke.
Once enacted, Californians would not be able to protect themselves, even if they possess firearms, as they would be at the mercy of robbers. Liu Longzhu stated that if this proposal passes, the resulting increase in crime problems would be ten times worse than Proposition 47. Intruders breaking into homes, whether for robbery, sexual assault, or even murder, would have no qualms, while homeowners are forced to justify their acts of self-defense or risk being deemed criminals, a ludicrous logic that is shocking. He boldly predicted that a significant number of California residents would choose to flee to states like Texas or Florida.
He further warned that this is not just a California issue; if this proposal is approved, it will severely impact core American values. What was meant to be laws for “suppressing violence and promoting goodness” have now turned into laws for “suppressing goodness and promoting violence.” This only encourages criminals to become more brazen, as they know that victims, even if armed, would be helpless.
If this proposal passes, it would render the right to bear arms under the Second Amendment meaningless, as the self-defense rights bestowed upon citizens would lose practical significance, making self-defense with a gun a legal joke.
Upon the introduction of AB 1333, the proposal immediately sparked heated discussions within the Chinese community. Many netizens criticized on X, stating: “The Democratic Party not only restricts law enforcement and citizens’ right to bear arms, but now they want to strip away self-defense rights, turning California into a criminal’s paradise.” Some sarcastically remarked, “Following ‘zero-cost purchases,’ home invasions will become the new modus operandi.”
Another comment read, “What’s next, should California residents open their doors to welcome robbers?” Some bluntly stated that this proposal is “sitting ducks” in action. There were even jests, saying, “California leeks express… welcoming + emotionally stable.”
According to current laws, murder can be deemed justifiable defense under the following circumstances: 1. Resisting an attempt to murder or seriously injure others. 2. Defending oneself, property, or person from violence or an unexpected attack. 3. Defending oneself or relatives legally and reasonably believing the other party may commit a felony or cause significant bodily harm. 4. Legally arresting a felon, or suppressing riots and maintaining peace.
The most significant aspect of the original law was allowing for “reasonable belief,” whereby, for instance, in a home invasion case, a homeowner can “reasonably believe” that the intruder poses a serious threat of bodily harm to themselves and their family, without the need for warning, and can directly shoot the intruder.
The new proposal significantly narrows the scope of justifiable defense by removing provisions protecting property and residences and obscuring the definition of personal safety threats. The crucial change is the elimination of the “reasonable belief” principle, meaning that indoors or outdoors, individuals cannot act in self-defense unless the attacker has caused concrete harm, even if there are signs of threat.
In the first clause, the term “intent” has been removed: No retaliation is allowed until substantial harm is suffered.
In the second clause, “residence” and “property” have been eliminated: Implying that if a robber breaks into a home and only steals property without harming anyone, defense is prohibited.
In the third clause, “reasonable belief” has been deleted: Effectively disallowing defense actions unless the attacker inflicts substantial harm.
The fourth clause has been entirely removed, meaning that a situation similar to the 1992 Los Angeles riots, where self-defense was justifiable, would not be covered.
Furthermore, the proposal has added three provisions that do not fall under justifiable defense: If threatened with loss of life outside the residence and there is a chance to escape, one cannot kill the assailant; excessive defense (with no clear method of determination); participating in a brawl or provoking others with words.
Lawyer Liu Longzhu stated that if public pressure is sufficient, this proposal could still be stopped. Citizens can take the following actions:
Raise awareness: Through media coverage and social media platforms, make more people aware of the serious consequences of this proposal, creating widespread opposition.
Contact legislators directly: Call or email the legislators who introduced the proposal and those representing your district, express strong opposition, and make it clear that if they support the proposal, voters will no longer support them and may switch to their opponents.
Apply electoral pressure: Encourage community members to pay attention to legislators’ positions and vote out those who support the proposal in the next elections, electing representatives who truly represent the will of the people.