California’s proposed Assembly Bill 1333 faces mounting opposition from sheriffs and gun rights advocates who say it would strip homeowners of their fundamental right to self-defense.
At a Glance
- California AB 1333 would limit when homeowners can legally use deadly force in self-defense situations
- Law enforcement leaders across California, including Butte County Sheriff Kory Honea and Tehama County Sheriff Dave Kain, strongly oppose the bill
- Bill author Assemblyman Rick Zbur claims the legislation targets “vigilantes” and has promised amendments amid intense backlash
- Critics argue the bill creates “unreasonable standards” that favor criminals over law-abiding homeowners
Law Enforcement Leaders Oppose California’s Self-Defense Restriction Bill
Opposition continues to grow against a controversial California bill that would substantially limit when homeowners can legally use deadly force to protect themselves. Assembly Bill 1333, introduced by Assemblyman Rick Chavez Zbur, has drawn fierce criticism from sheriffs across the state who argue it undermines constitutional rights and endangers law-abiding citizens.
Butte County Sheriff Kory Honea has emerged as one of the bill’s most vocal critics, calling it a misguided attempt to solve a non-existent problem at the expense of public safety.
“I had a chance to review the proposed legislation and it occurs to me that it is a solution looking for a problem to solve and regrettably it is a poor solution at that,” Sheriff Honea said.
“It would negatively impact a person’s inalienable right to defend themselves or others against attack. The language in there creates an unreasonable and subjective standard for people who legitimately fear for their lives. It’s another example of how legislators in Sacramento create bad public policy that favor criminals and penalize victims.”
The Bill’s Controversial Requirements
AB 1333 would eliminate justifiable homicide in the defense of property and impose new restrictions on self-defense claims. The bill would require citizens to prove they exhausted all possible avenues of retreat before using deadly force, even in their own homes. This directly conflicts with traditional “Castle Doctrine” principles that have historically protected a homeowner’s right to defend themselves against intruders.
Critics argue the legislation’s vague language creates dangerous uncertainty for homeowners facing potentially life-threatening situations. Tehama County Sheriff Dave Kain expressed his disbelief at the bill’s implications for homeowners.
“We are swinging so far outside the realm of what is reasonable by telling people now that under certain circumstances, they can’t protect themselves in their own home against a criminal element is probably one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard of. I don’t know how you could modify it that would make it any other way than the way that I read it, which is that we are trying to make it illegal to defend yourself in your own home,” Sheriff Kain said.
Bill Author Defends Intentions, Promises Changes
Facing mounting criticism, Assemblyman Zbur has defended the bill, claiming it aims to prevent vigilantism rather than restrict legitimate self-defense. His statements have only intensified the controversy, particularly when he specifically cited the Kyle Rittenhouse case as motivation for the legislation.
“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,” Zbur said.
The reference to Rittenhouse, who was acquitted of all charges related to shootings during civil unrest in Kenosha, Wisconsin, has further galvanized opposition from Second Amendment advocates and law enforcement officials. Rittenhouse himself responded to the bill on social media, stating “I’ll see you in California.”
Coalition of Opposition Continues to Grow
The bill faces organized resistance from a growing coalition that includes the National Rifle Association, Crime Survivors Resource Center, and multiple law enforcement agencies. They argue that AB 1333 imposes unreasonable burdens on victims during high-stress, life-threatening situations when split-second decisions must be made.
Supporters of the bill, including Moms Demand Action, maintain that the legislation promotes de-escalation and responsible firearm use. Nick Suplina from Everytown for Gun Safety defended the bill, saying, “This bill simply updates state law to make clear that if a person can safely walk away from a conflict, they must do so instead of escalating to using deadly force.”
Despite assurances from Zbur’s office that amendments are forthcoming, critics remain skeptical that any modifications could adequately address their fundamental concerns about the bill’s impact on Californians’ ability to protect themselves and their families. Sheriff Kain indicated that the issue would be a major topic of discussion among California’s 58 Sheriffs at their next meeting, suggesting a unified law enforcement response may be developing.
