A few decades ago the movement for concealed carry began. Anti-liberty/gun cracktivists were outraged. There would be wild west gunfights everywhere! The streets would run with blood! Of course, none of that happened. More recently, the Constitutional Carry movement caught fire, and the same predictions of blazing gunplay were made and failed to materialize. More than half the states allow constitutional carry and every state allows concealed carry of some sort. No state that has adopted concealed or constitutional carry has repealed either.

Constitutional Carry means any citizen not otherwise disqualified by law—adjudicated mental illness, felony convictions, etc.--can carry concealed weapons without government vetting or permits as the Founders intended. Many still get permits, which are necessary for reciprocity with surrounding states.

Another pro-liberty innovation has been Castle Doctrine laws, which ten states currently enjoy. Generally, Castle Doctrine laws remove any obligation to retreat from an intruder in the home which makes all kinds of sense. Why should a victim of a hot burglary be forced to abandon their home, family and possessions to a violent criminal? Most burglars absolutely avoid hot burglaries—when residents are home—and those that don’t are among the most violent and dangerous criminals.

Such laws also commonly feature the presumption that someone unlawfully entering a home isn’t there for good and lawful purposes, and whatever force is necessary may be used against them. They also commonly immunize citizens who defend themselves and their families from prosecution and civil liability. This is a good thing as the relatives of dead violent criminals often suddenly discover the departed were were irreplaceable assets to humanity and minutes from receiving a declaration of canonization from the Vatican.

Castle Doctrine laws arguably overlap Stand Your Ground Laws, which 27 states enjoy. They’re not residence specific and feature essentially the same benefits as Castle Doctrine laws. So long as one is legally present, there is no requirement to run away before using whatever force is necessary against criminal attack. Both laws are common sense, sane empowerments of the law-abiding and innocent against violent criminals.

Despite what anti-liberty/gun/racist cracktivists whine, neither law allows anyone to bypass laws governing lawful self-defense. They’re entirely race neutral.

That’s why California is trying to do away with the Castle Doctrine:

Graphic: X Screenshot

California Democrat State Assemblyman Rick Chavez Zbur (D-Hollywood) is rushing to amend a proposed bill that would have made it unlawful for a homeowner to exercise self-defense against a burglar in many circumstances.

The bill, AB 1333, “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,” according to the official summary of the legislation.

The bill would require homeowners to have “exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily injury” before acting in self-defense using deadly force.

As always, the devil is in the details and in legislative language. One can be certain that what’s considered ‘reasonable” in The People’s Republic of California bears no resemblance to what’s reasonable in red states. The intent of the bill is surely to criminalize self-defense within one’s home and on one’s property. Attacked by an armed criminal in the dead of night, homeowners must run away, and should they dare to defend themselves, their family and property, whatever force they use will surely be ruled unreasonable.

Graphic: X Screenshot

If passed, the bill would be one of the most obvious criminal empowerment, immunity from prosecution laws ever imagined, which is par for the course in California.

A “Community Notes” comment on Zbur’s post added:

“Assemblymember Zbur introduced that bill when he explicitly intended to limit the right to defend their home.”

Zbur’s tweet reveals his real intentions. Apparently Zbur thinks homeowners lure or invite criminals into their homes as a prelude to murdering them. This happens precisely never. In a long police career I never experienced anything like this, nor was I ever aware of it happening anywhere. Kyle Rittenhouse did not “provoke violence.” He was violently attacked by numerous violent rioters, one of whom pointed a handgun at Rittenhouse’s head. He was acquitted of political charges because he acted entirely in self-defense.

What’s most likely is Zbur knows vigilantes don’t lure helpless, sympathetic violent criminals to their doom. He, like most of the California legislature and much of its population, think criminals victims, sympathetic figures deserving of every protection and break California can give them—even at the cost of the maiming and deaths of the innocent.

That’s virtue signaling, California style.

On a different subject, if you are not already a subscriber, you may not know that we’ve implemented something new: A weekly newsletter with unique content from our editors for subscribers only. These essays alone are worth the cost of the subscription. 

Mike McDaniel is a USAF veteran, classically trained musician, Japanese and European fencer, life-long athlete, firearm instructor, retired police officer and high school and college English teacher. He is a published author and blogger. His home blog is Stately McDaniel Manor.