For the past several years, various states have been passing Stand Your Ground laws to protect their citizens’ right to self-defense. Most of these laws have one thing in common: If someone breaks into your home and attacks you, they do away with the duty to retreat before using deadly force to stop an attack.
As most gun owners know, this is simply common sense. How can an older, weaker, slower person try to run away from an attacker who is younger, stronger and faster? The result is usually disastrous.
Still, various gun-ban organizations seem to hate Stand Your Ground laws even more than concealed carry deregulation. As so-called Everytown for Gun Safety likes to put it: “Shoot First laws—also known as Stand Your Ground legislation—are deadly, reckless, and extreme. They give people a license to kill, allowing them to shoot first and ask questions later, then claim self-defense.”
A measure currently under consideration in the California legislature would impose a “duty to retreat” on Californians, stipulating: “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.” It is Assembly Bill 1333, and the synopsis of the bill states, “This bill would eliminate certain circumstances under which homicide is justifiable, including, among others, in defense of a habitation or property.”
And, of course, Everytown is ecstatic over the possibility of protecting violent criminals while at the same time endangering lawful gun owners.
“This legislation builds on California’s gun safety legacy and lays the blueprint for the rest of the nation,” Monisha Henley, Everytown senior vice president for government affairs, said in a news release praising the measure. “White supremacists and other extremists have hidden behind self-defense laws to fire a gun and turn any conflict into a death sentence. Now, lawmakers have an opportunity to help stop that and save lives.”
Despite the decidedly anti-gun nature of California’s state government, there are plenty of people working to put an end to the legislation—including some high-profile law enforcement officials. In fact, Tehama County Sheriff Dave Kain told Action News Now that the proposal is “ridiculous.”
“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,” Sheriff Kain told the news outlet.
Kain said current laws are sufficient, and the DA’s office already has a procedure for determining whether or not a person involved in an alleged self-defense episode has committed a justified homicide. He also said that he and California’s 57 other county sheriffs plan to discuss the matter at their next meeting.
Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco is also speaking out strongly against the measure.
“Sacramento Democrats have spent the last 15 years tying the hands of law enforcement and coddling criminals, using and abusing ordinary Californians in their attempt to make criminals the real victims,” Bianco told the California Globe. “Now, they’re actively trying to tie the hands of our residents, who have had to defend themselves against re-released career criminals far too often.”
The bill is scheduled to be considered in committee on March 24.
Governments primary job should to be to punish the wicked and defend the innocent. The government of California has this intentionally backwards.
To Democrats, gun owners are the wicked.
The *sole* “job of [a just] government” *is* to ‘secure the rights of life, liberty, and happiness’. Which of those rights is being secured with this proposed legislation? If that can’t be answered, then the legislation is unjust and repugnant to a free society.
Ref. Declaration of Independence
If you are forced to flee your home, and are you fortunate enough to get out alive, do the invaders then get a right to stay in the home until you can get a court eviction order (file a form 27B stroke 6 and pay your $800 processing fee, average wait time 9 months for first decision)? Or is that part yet-to-be written legislation in CA?
Dynamite movie reference.
Does the California law proposed create a duty to retreat in one’s own home? I haven’t read it (because I honestly don’t give a rat’s a** about what the crazies in Ca. get up to) but would still be rather surprised if it does. Even in California “a man’s home is his castle” is a traditional saying that carries considerable weight. It would of course be an abomination and an insult to the basic rights of any citizen to impose such a requirement. As it is in the UK where there is a delineated duty to retreat from ONE’S OWN HOME rather than cause serious harm to a criminal invader. But the UK is the only place I know of for sure that imposesthat misbegotten, outrageous requirement. .
That I’m aware of no law of any US state or other jurisdiction imposes a duty to retreat from one’s own property. I haven’t read every one of them and may be wrong about that. If anyone knows different and can cite laws that do, I love being corrected when I’m wrong because it makes me smarter. Please do.
Usually the duty to retreat applies when one is outside the home. And depending, of course on how it’s written and enforced, it isn’t necessarily as bad as implied by some of the comments I’ve seen here. For instance, you can’t imagine a state more friendly to lawful firearms ownership and use of same in self defense than Louisiana. The first shooting I ever worked as a new deputy sheriff there involved a young woman who had an infant in a crib, and encountered a creeper who had entered her home by pulling a screen off a back window. She lit him up like Las Vegas with her .32 H&R revolver and that was the end of that. I found her weeping because because she thought she was in trouble for shooting the guy.
Ha ha. In trouble. In Louisiana. For shooting a burglar in her own home. Rii-i-ight. The next day I visited her again with a new box of .32 S&W for her revolver. I worked law enforcement in Louisiana for years after that, across multiple jurisdictions/agencies and every single law enforcement officer I ever knew had the same exact attitude sa mine. Any decent person defending themselves, especially in their own home, and preventing rape/robbery/murder etc. deserves only support and praise, and a bit of congratulations doesn’t hurt either.
Yet for my entire life and before Louisiana has had a duty to retreat written into its law. ALL IT SAYS is that when not on one’s own property (which includes your car, RV etc,) a person has the duty to retreat before using deadly force IF RETREAT IS A FEASABLE AND SAFE OPTION. In the scenario proposed by another commenter of a slow-moving or disabled elderly person safe retreat by fleeing is obviously not an option so such a duty would not be imposed on one unable to safely execute a retreat.
Yes, there are people serving prison sentences in Louisiana because they clearly had the ability to safely leave a volatile situation but instead chose to remain and start shooting. But believe me when I tell you Louisiana is still the friendliest state possible to people lawfully exercising their right to defend themselves from unprovoked aggression. And I should know, I’m one of them. The first time I shot a man it was as a teenager, before I even thought of becoming a cop, in a situation where that drunken and aggressive man, who was twice my size, intended to beat me senseless for reasons I’m still totally clueless about. I DID try to leave, and in fact when I shot the ignorant SOB he was in the process of dragging me out of the window of my car in which I was trying to leave.
I had a duty to retreat before shooting the cretin, and attempted to do exactly that. He made that impossible for me and only then did I put a hole in him. He survived and, frankly, I’m glad he did. Because I have morals and I’m not a sociopath. But I haven’t even a whisper of guilt or shame for doing it. He brought it upon himself and he is entirely to blame.
No penalties for me, no arrest, no charges, no nothing except a formal affirmation in court (he tried to sue me and got nowhere with it) that I had every legal reason to shoot the guy and had done my duty as a citizen and decent human being and attempted to do my duty and get the hell away before putting a hole in him but was prevented from doing so by his continuing violent behavior.
However it doesn’t take a very vivid imagination to think of the same situation occurring in a place that doesn’t value the rights of citizens as strongly as Louisiana and having it turn out horribly different.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with imposing a duty to retreat before resort to life-taking force provided it’s not given a jackass interpretation. Like imposing it when a man is in his own home or other property. Or making the “safely retreat” requirement so broad and unreasonable that a 70 year old doing their best rickety sprint down the street under gunfire is considered a “safe” option.
Honestly, if you’re a decent person of good morals and sane disposition you should WANT to avoid killing a person if you can. But if you’re a hothead or a punk with an inferiority complex who is actively seeking an excuse to shoot someone, then I recommend you don’t try it in Louisiana. Believe me, we lock up more people per capita than any other state and we will always have a prison cell just your size.
And if you’re a violent criminal I recommend plying your trade in another state. EVERYBODY is armed here and has the blessing of the law, morals, and good sense to use that weapon provided they use it sensibly.
There you go. Beat me to it–good work. It’s about a QUALIFIED duty to retreat. That is, if the actor can do so WITH COMPLETE SAFETY. .’Big difference between that and a hypothetical duty to retreat in all circumstances. Now look at the proposed California law: looks like the “qualified duty,” does it not? So what does that make the entire article? [Key in “Toreodor music”]
Then there’s a “red” state like Tennessee, where if you point a weapon at a thief or home invader you can be charged with “assault” unless you can prove you had reason to believe your life was in danger. My reading of the law is that in order to avoid prosecution, you need to give the moke a fair chance to kill you first, then you can respond.
No fair chances in MS.
LOL! A fair chance to kill you?
No, it is the Threat Model that applies: Intent, Capability, Opportunity. If an assailant has all 3, then you are justified in responding with an appropriate level of force to stop that threat.
Period.
99.999% (supposed but unconfirmed) of legislators have no idea what that even means. Which is unfortunate.
One of my eldest son’s wisest decisions was to leave the Republik of Kalifornya when his place of business was burgled twice and prosecutors refused to take action against the known, multiple – offender repeat felon caught on camera both times.
One of my eldest son’s worst decisions was relocating to the Republik of Coloradistan.
Well hell Sheriff, there goes you no nock gunm down advantage.
Better buy some more duct tape eh?
My home security system consist of two hundred attack trained Chihuahuas.
Standing your ground here is fairly safe, tiptoeing through the mind field is a shit filled experience.
A lot of chihuahuas will bite.
But none are too heavy for an osprey to carry back to the nest. ;P
Try dachshunds. Two or more form a hivemind and can coordinate their attacks.
Dachshunds are to easily frightened by hot dog buns and a jar of mustard.
This is why one should if at all possible just SHOOT, SHOVEL and SHUT UP.
When I buy some property, I will definitely have a backhoe. One that can dig DEEP. But nothing decays as fast as organic material left on the ground where the vultures and UV light can get to it.
You’d be okay with throwing a hundred pounds or so of quicklime slurry on top of the organic waste before filling the hole up to the top.
… so I’ve heard.
iirc that actually works as a preservative.
A Massive Second Amendment Case Before the Supreme Court Today.
A massive case if before the United States Supreme Court today for oral arguments. Washington Gun Law President, William Kirk, discusses the matter of Smith & Wesson v. Mexico, a case which has the potential to destroy the firearms industry if allowed to proceed (if Smith & Wesson looses). This case has not garnered the attention that many other 2A cases have, but its importance cannot be overstated.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NA4WNR0zxwk
Any nation disarming American citizens using any means possible should constitute an act of War.
In certain circles it is closely watched, as there is a chance that the Supreme Court will shoot down the “negligent marketing” ploy used in the case against Remington after Sand Hook, plus a very high probability that it may do serious damage to the essence of these cases that attempt to hold the manufacturer liable for a subsequent criminal act by a third person well down the distribution change or using an illegally obtained firearm. This case, as the Remington case, involves the legal sale of firearms by S&W to distributors and perhaps direct sales to FFLs, but no connection to the criminal use of the weapon. Here, guns are stolen or straw purchased and then smuggled into Mexico.
Not much in the way of updates after argument this morning. The best I could find was from PBS: “Both liberal and conservative justices appeared skeptical that the claims could clear hurdles in U.S. law that largely shield gun makers from lawsuits when their products are used in crime.”
…”lays the blueprint for the rest of the nation…” Voters in like precincts need to wake up.
Commies are always trying to ignore human nature.
Manipulate human nature I would think.
Assembly Bill 1333 is more Utopian, unrealistic garbage. Fleeing from evil doesn’t mean you won’t get dead.
“An unarmed man can only flee from evil, and evil is not overcome by fleeing from it.” Jeff Cooper
I’m all for it in CA. IF the law also applies to CA LE including governors l mayors, and any other politicians, police chief/sheriff’s security detail, making it police can’t shoot unless shot at in commiefornia, just like the citizens.
What the fuck is wrong with the politicians in the gov’t. They Just LET Criminals Do shit without any repercussions? Let them in your home and You can’t do anything about it? in LA There is Constant Break ins at homes. Did they forget what happened to Pelosi’s Husband? that this will Affect THEM too? These idiots need to EXPERIENCE Their Dumb Decisions First hand to make them Learn.
They are not affected by crime, they are not even threatened by it and are often enriched by it. Armed citizens are a threat they cannot control and could easily end them. You tell me why they do what they do especially when they are not able to be voted out.
We already knew this
https://bearingarms.com/tomknighton/2025/03/04/video-goa-uncovers-atf-operation-spying-on-gun-forums-n1227853
Of course. How else will they set up an entrapment, err sting operation?
So your position is that law-enforcement should just ignore threats on social media?
Great, so you’re suggesting if a Democrat posts a threat on social media to assassinate Donald Trump, there would be no law-enforcement response whatsoever.
Interesting position you have there
Mynnr49r you amaze me .
I never said, or alluded that threats should be ignored.
You attempt at mind reading failed.
You mean like they allowed to happen multiple times? Lol yeah no enforcement would be an improvement.
“So your position is that law-enforcement should just ignore threats on social media?”
He never said that or expressed any such opinion.
Quit making things up Mynnr49r, take your lies elsewhere.
Would we notice during democratic control if they didn’t?https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1895936561385996424?refresh=1741095203
The @FBI and law enforcement have for years neglected violent extremist criminal organizing by radical leftist networks.
There was open proof that antifa was communicating terrorist events across state lines through a very obvious organization structure. Meanwhile that clown in charge of the FBI said antifa was just an idea. Crazy. But Jan 6 trespassers were tortured and given obscene sentences. Totally not political persecution just like every other tyrant in history.
This bill has come under attack from several corners, and the author has said she will be amending the bill, that it was not her intent to require residents to flee their abodes or to simply stand buy while a burglary/robbery takes place, only being allowed to defend oneself if physical harm is threatened–which is exactly what the bill requires as now written. Both sheriffs and prosecutors have said that the current law is sufficiently clear as to when a justifiable homicide occurs that no change in the law is warranted. It makes that which is relatively simple extremely complicated. IMO, the bill arguably flips the burden of proof, now resting on prosecutors to show that the act was NOT in self defense beyond a reasonable doubt, to instead requiring that the defendant prove justifiable homicide.
I retreated one step with my right foot as I assumed the Weaver stance.
Your honor, I did retreat. After I checked to see if he had stopped breathing I stepped back.
Joking aside I know a lot of people who cannot run due to age injuries and various other things. The smart ones are all with carry permits and know the appropriate section of the law very well, especially concerning 3rd party defense. Not too many public attacks on the infirm in most of the state outside of the larger cities and usual suspects. Now attacks during burglary yeah happens everywhere but that’s why you shoot home invaders with whatever is handy. Because of our retarded laws permits and restrictions that tends to be some variety of shotgun.
I’ll retreat from the body.