A measure before the California State Assembly that would have imposed a duty to retreat upon citizens before using lethal force to protect themselves from threats has been pulled from consideration by the bill’s author.
The measure had been introduced by Democratic Caucus Chair Rick Chavez Zbur, who touted the measure in a recently released statement as a way to close a dangerous legal loophole “that could allow armed aggressors to initiate confrontations in public, kill their victims, and then exploit self-defense laws to escape accountability.”
It seems that Zbur had been listening to the inane rhetoric of gun control groups too much and accidentally believed one of their favorite talking points about how Stand Your Ground laws are bad. On its website, Everytown for Gun Safety writes: “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.”
Sound familiar? Zbur’s excuse is a pretty good rendition of Everytown’s longtime lie about an important self-defense issue.
“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, had said in praise of 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.”
With the legislation now withdrawn, gun rights and self-defense proponents are declaring victory—and a much-needed victory at that. Rick Travis, legislative director for the California Rifle & Pistol Association, told Cam Edwards of Cam & Company that people around the country were so insulted that many got involved in fighting the measure.
“That doesn’t happen much in California,” Travis said. “That amount of a coalition voice had an impact where several other legislators that would normally support Zbur took two steps back with a ‘not my circus, not my monkey’ kind of an attitude. Then, Zbur pulled back and said, ‘Well, I’m going to amend it.’
“The hilarious point was he is one of the biggest fear-mongers, he is one of the biggest misinformers that we’ve ever had in the capital. And yet, he pointed a finger at us and said, ‘All you guys like to do is fear-monger and misinform people. We started laughing and were like, ‘Look in the mirror, buddy. That’s you.’”
In the end, Travis said, Zbur amended the measure to try to make himself look good, but that didn’t work.
“No one bought it, number one,” Travis said. “Number 2, he made the bill even worse. Then he just said, fine, forget it, and pulled the bill. So, the bill is dead for this session.”
Ultimately, Zbur’s pulling the bill makes California a little freer than it would have been had the measure passed and become law. But as we all know, there’s still a long way to go for the Golden State to recognize the Second Amendment rights of its citizens as it should.
When they say reading the bill is “fear-mongering” and “misinformation” are they really so stupid to believe themselves or are they just hoping you’re too stupid to actually check for yourself?
Either is unacceptable.
He should’ve pulled the Pelosi classic of “we have to pass the bill to know what’s in the bill.” Who knew legislation worked like a Kinder Surprise?
When it was pointed out to him, but the California Sheriffs Association no less, that the language of the bill made any exercise of self defense IN THE HOME fraught with risk for the occupant, who could be charged with murder if he/she failed to retreat and/or used “excessive force”, the author said that this was not his intent. I have to assume that some gun control group was the actual author.v However, despite the withdrawal, he promised that he would rewrite the bill and reintroduce it in the future. Gun Control is an immortal beast.
“Gun Control is an immortal beast.”
That’s because evil never rests.
BOLO.
Gun Control has the morality of those who try to impose it.
When the proposed laws penalize the law-abiding over the law-breaking the laws can be considered immoral.
“Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. ”
– – Dr. Ferris.