CALIFORNIA — A newly introduced bill, AB 1333, is raising alarms among gun rights advocates as it seeks to eliminate California’s “no duty to retreat” protections for those forced to defend themselves in life-threatening situations. This misguided piece of legislation, introduced by Assemblymember Mike Gipson, would make it easier to prosecute law-abiding citizens who use self-defense by requiring them to attempt retreat before defending themselves—even in situations where retreat may not be possible or safe.

This bill aligns with the anti-gun agenda of groups like Everytown for Gun Safety and Moms Demand Action, which have praised its introduction as a means to prevent so-called “armed extremism” and “vigilante violence.”However, in reality, AB 1333 does nothing to stop crime or violence—it only makes it harder for innocent people to protect themselves when faced with an immediate threat.

No Duty to Retreat: A Fundamental Self-Defense Protection

Currently, California does not impose a duty to retreat on individuals who are legally present in a location and are forced to defend themselves from an attack. This is consistent with the self-defense laws in the vast majority of U.S. states. In fact, according to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), at least 29 states have explicit “stand your ground” laws that do not require retreat before using force in self-defense. Many other states follow similar principles through case law or jury instructions that uphold a person’s right to defend themselves without first attempting to flee.

Requiring a duty to retreat, as AB 1333 proposes, shifts the burden onto victims rather than criminals. It assumes that, in a moment of high-stress, life-or-death decision-making, a person should have to analyze whether escape is feasible—rather than allowing them to respond immediately to stop an attack. This is not how real-world self-defense situations work, and forcing hesitation can be deadly.

A Gift to Criminals, A Danger to Citizens

AB 1333 doesn’t just change the legal landscape—it actively

emboldens criminals by making their victims more vulnerable. Under this proposal, an armed assailant could claim in court that their victim “failed to retreat” and therefore was not justified in using force to defend themselves. This could lead to wrongful prosecutions, forcing people who acted in self-defense to fight for their freedom in court simply for choosing to live rather than gamble on an uncertain escape.

Everytown for Gun Safety claims this bill is needed to stop “armed extremism,” but there is no evidence that self-defense laws contribute to extremist violence. Instead, removing no-duty-to-retreat protections only harms law-abiding citizens, including the most vulnerable members of society—women, the elderly, and disabled individuals—who may not have the option to escape when threatened.

The Bottom Line: AB 1333 Puts Victims in Danger

California already has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, and now lawmakers want to go even further—punishing people for defending themselves rather than going after the actual criminals. AB 1333 is a reckless and dangerous proposal that ignores the realities of violent crime and the critical importance of self-defense rights.

If passed, this bill would make Californians less safe by forcing them to second-guess their right to protect themselves. Law-abiding gun owners and self-defense advocates must speak out against this legislation before it turns innocent people into criminals. Your right to defend yourself should never depend on whether a prosecutor thinks you ran far enough.