Moms demand recently published a defense of AB 1333, which would limit California’s castle doctrine law and institute a duty to retreat when individuals are attacked. The moms claim that “right wing extremists” are attacking it. Wrong.
No rational person wants an anti-gun prosecutor second-guessing whether you “could have run away” when you are attacked by some criminal and are forced to shoot.
If I’m out with my toddler and a lunatic comes at us with a knife or other imminent deadly threat, I shouldn’t have to waste several moments (while under an adrenaline rush) calculating whether I have a chance to escape before shooting to defend my little girl and myself.
That’s what “duty to retreat” does. It’s outright evil. California has always had a stand your ground defense and it’s never been a problem.
California’s stand your ground jury instruction already doesn’t allow for a viable self-defense claim if you provoked the attack. The anti-gunners’ claimed fear isn’t a real thing. They just hate the right to bear arms and hate that more people in California can now exercise it thanks to Bruen.
Konstadinos Moros is an Associate Attorney with Michel & Associates, a law firm in Long Beach that regularly represents the California Rifle & Pistol Association (CRPA) in its litigation efforts to restore the Second Amendment in California. You can find him on his Twitter handle @MorosKostas. To donate to CRPA or become a member, visit https://crpa.org/.
This post was adapted by SNW from a tweet posted by Konstadinos Moros.
“That’s what “duty to retreat” does. It’s outright evil. ”
They think criminals are simply going to watch you run away!
Criminals can run too and bullets don’t need legs.
In 2024: over 98% of rape victims tried to run away – it didn’t work out well but 2% managed to pull it off although suffering some injury. But 33% of rape victims were armed with a firearm and escaped injury and rape.
In 2024: 89% of assault victims, unarmed, tried to run away – it didn’t work out well. But 96% of assault victims armed with a firearm escape serious harm and/or death.
Yeah, Moms Demand Action and California just want to make sure the criminal has a chance to inflict harm.
Correction for: “In 2024: over 98% of rape victims tried to run away – it didn’t work out well but 2% managed to pull it off although suffering some injury. But 33% of rape victims were armed with a firearm and escaped injury and rape.”
Should have been…
In 2024: over 98% of unarmed, or armed with other than a firearm, rape victims tried to run away – it didn’t work out well and they suffered serious injury and rape and some were killed, but 2% managed to pull it off although suffering some injury but no rape. But 33% of rape victims were armed with a firearm, and standing their ground, escaped injury and rape.
Correction for : “In 2024: 89% of assault victims, unarmed, tried to run away – it didn’t work out well. But 96% of assault victims armed with a firearm escape serious harm and/or death.”
Should have been…
In 2024: 89% of assault victims, unarmed or armed with other than a firearm, tried to run away – it didn’t work out well and they suffered serious injury and/or death. But 96% of assault victims armed with a firearm, and standing their ground, escaped serious harm and/or death.
Perfectly stated. And yet it will pass and get overturned by a district court but then reinstated by the ninth circuit on appeal and then supreme court will deny cert. all that will take thousands of hours and years of litigation and millions of dollars on both sides.