At this early stage in the legislative process, it takes an unusually bad bill to spark a statewide backlash.
Assembly member Rick Zbur, D-Los Angeles, nevertheless managed this feat with his introduction of Assembly Bill 1333, which seeks to clarify when a person may legally use deadly force to protect themselves. It has no title yet, but it should be called “You Can’t Defend Your Home from Invaders Act.”
“This bill would eliminate certain circumstances under which homicide is justifiable, including, among others, in defense of a habitation or property,” per the Legislative Counsel’s Digest. Zbur said it was not “intended to limit a crime victim’s right to defend yourself, your family, or home” but to “prevent wannabe vigilantes like Kyle Rittenhouse from provoking violence & claiming self defense after the fact.”
However, a legislator’s after-the-fact justifications are not as important as the specific language. For instance, the bill states specifically that “homicide is not justifiable” if “the person used more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against a danger.”
We look askance at bills that respond to national news events, as this one does. But our main concern—and the reason for so much pushback—is that such language will muddy the waters during any incident involving home defense.
As a defense attorney told ABC10 News, the bill “might sound good in a classroom, but it is not going to help jurors making critical decisions.”
The bill would amend the current law, which allows people to use deadly force when resisting murder or any felony to only allow it when someone is planning “to do some great bodily injury upon any person.” But let’s say someone breaks into your house for unknown purposes. Suddenly, the victim’s fate hinges on whether they were sure the invader intended to do “great bodily injury.”
That Zbur thought his legislation made sense when he introduced it reflects poor judgment, to say the least.
The legislation is backed by gun control group Everytown for Gun Safety, which offered specious reasoning to justify this attack on self-defense. “White supremacists and other extremists have hidden behind self-defense laws to fire a gun and turn any conflict into a death sentence,” argued Monisha Henley, a vice president at the group, according to The Center Square. That sort of rhetoric might’ve gotten a pass in previous years, but no one should fall for it.
Zbur’s proposal has rightly drawn considerable backlash, especially from law enforcement, who recognize that what Zbur’s proposal would do is make criminals out of victims. Assemblymember Tom Lackey, R-Palmdale, rightly described the bill as “ludicrous, dangerous and deplorable.”
As a result of the backlash, Zbur vowed to revise the legislation, but, again, we’re always more interested in the specific language of legislation rather than discussions about intentions and future promises. This one should instantly go into the hopper.