Category: Gun Fearing Wussies

Categories
A Victory! All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Gun Fearing Wussies

DOJ Challenges Virgin Islands’ Firearm Restrictions in Landmark Lawsuit by John Crump

Lawsuit Gavel Judge Court iStock-Mark Youso 1455889577
The Justice Department accuses the defendants of systematically violating the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens through unconstitutional policies and practices related to firearm licensing. iStock-Mark Youso 1455889577

On December 16, 2025, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a major lawsuit in the District Court of the Virgin Islands, St. Thomas and St. John Division, against the Government of the Virgin Islands, the Virgin Islands Police Department (VIPD), and Police Commissioner Mario Brooks.

The Justice Department accuses the defendants of systematically violating the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens through unconstitutional policies and practices related to firearm licensing. The complaint, spanning 12 pages, seeks declaratory and equitable relief under the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 to restore these fundamental human rights.

The lawsuit hinges on the assertion that the Second Amendment, affirmed as a “fundamental right” by the Supreme Court in New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n, Inc. v. Bruen, protects the right of individuals to keep and bear arms both at home and in public for lawful purposes, such as self-defense. This right, extended to the Virgin Islands under 48 U.S.C. § 1561, has been upheld in cases such as McDonald v. City of Chicago and District of Columbia v. Heller. However, the U.S. alleges that the Virgin Islands defendants have defied these rulings, rendering the constitutional right to bear arms “a virtual nullity” within the U.S. territory.

 

Central to the complaint are several specific grievances. The VIPD, under Commissioner Brooks’ supervision since January 23, 2025, enforces laws that require applicants to submit to warrantless home searches and to install safes bolted to their floors or walls as conditions for obtaining a firearm permit. These requirements, deemed unconstitutional by Heller, which struck down similar restrictions, impose significant financial burdens and privacy invasions. Additionally, the processing of applications is delayed by several months to a year, with no probable cause to justify home inspections. Non-compliance results in de facto denials, further obstructing citizens’ rights.

The complaint outlines three counts of violation under 34 U.S.C. § 12601. Count I addresses “Unconstitutional Conditions,” arguing that requiring warrantless searches and safe installations violates the Second Amendment by conditioning the right to bear arms on waiving constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and imposing financial expenditures. Count II, “Unreasonable Delays,” highlights excessive wait times and the lack of status updates, which deny applicants timely access to firearms and compel them to administrative exhaustion.

Finally, count III, “Unconstitutional ‘Proper Reason’ Requirement,” challenges the Virgin Islands’ law, mirroring the New York statute struck down in Bruen, which mandates applicants prove a “proper reason” for carrying a firearm, a discretion left entirely to the Commissioner.

The regulatory framework in the Virgin Islands exacerbates these issues. Possession of a firearm is a crime unless licensed, with permits valid for three years and tied to specific firearms, and permits require annual inspections.

The undefined “good moral character” and “proper reason” criteria allow arbitrary denials, while penalties for unlicensed possession include up to 10 years’ imprisonment and fines of $10,000 to $15,000. These stringent measures, combined with the VIPD’s pattern of denying licenses to those with “too many” firearms, create a formidable barrier to exercising Second Amendment rights.

Factual allegations, based on accounts from multiple permit applicants, detail the arduous process. Applicants must provide a purpose for ownership, undergo mandatory home inspections without legal justification, and install costly safes even in shared households.

The VIPD’s reliance on “character vouchers” and its discretionary power to define “proper reason” further conditions rights on external approval, contradicting Bruen’s rejection of “special need” requirements.

The U.S. seeks a declaration that these practices violate federal law, a permanent injunction against implementing offending Virgin Islands statutes in this manner, and additional relief as justice requires. This action underscores a broader effort to ensure that law enforcement practices align with constitutional protections, particularly in territories where local policies may diverge from federal standards.

The lawsuit’s timing, filed on the same day as its documentation, reflects the urgency of addressing these alleged violations. Led by U.S. Attorney Adam Sleeper and Assistant U.S. Attorney Angela P. Tyson-Floyd, with support from the Civil Rights Division under Assistant Attorney General Harmeet K. Dhillon, the case pits federal authority against territorial governance. The outcome could set a precedent for the administration of Second Amendment rights across U.S. territories, potentially reshaping firearm licensing nationwide.

For residents of the Virgin Islands, this case represents a critical juncture. The alleged bureaucratic hurdles and unconstitutional conditions have long frustrated law-abiding citizens’ ability to defend themselves, a right the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed.

As the legal battle unfolds, it will test the balance between the U.S. Virgin Islands government’s wants and individual liberties, with implications that may extend beyond the Caribbean to the mainland United States.

This lawsuit is a bold assertion of federal oversight to protect constitutional rights in the Virgin Islands.

By challenging the VIPD’s practices, the U.S. aims to dismantle what it describes as a coordinated effort to nullify Second Amendment protections through unconstitutional means.

As the case progresses, it will likely draw significant attention from legal scholars, gun rights advocates, and policymakers, offering a potential roadmap for resolving similar disputes elsewhere.

About John Crump

Mr. Crump is an NRA instructor and a constitutional activist. John has written about firearms, interviewed people from all walks of life, and on the Constitution. John lives in Northern Virginia with his wife and sons, follow him on X at @crumpyss, or at www.crumpy.com.

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Cops Gun Fearing Wussies

NYC gun buyers raise Second Amendment appeal over licensing rules

A trio of New York City gun owners say the city’s gun registration requirements and waiting period require

them to traverse additional administrative hurdles to acquire guns legally.

 / November 18, 2025
Semi-automatic handguns are displayed at shop in New Castle, Pa., in 2020. (AP Photo/Keith Srakocic, File)

MANHATTAN (CN) — A group of New York City gun buyers asked a federal appeals court on Tuesday to reinstate their Second Amendment challenge against the state’s administrative gun licensing requirements, which they claim infringe on their constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

Charles Mills, Craig Sotomayor, and Braden Holliday sued New York City in 2023, claiming regulations like the city’s 90-day waiting period to purchase firearms, background checks and the ban on possessing a backup concealed handgun limit are “absolute bar — even if temporarily — to their right to have and bear arms.”

Holliday, a Bronx resident, separately challenged the city’s imposition of purportedly exorbitant application and renewal fees as a restriction on his ability to possess arms.

He says New York City’s licensing and renewal fees, at $428.50, “grossly exceed” the $10 statutory cap imposed on every other jurisdiction in state, with the exception of Nassau County on Long Island.

Their case was thrown out at the motion to dismiss stage in December 2024 by U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff, who concluded that “none of the predominantly administrative regulations here operates to permanently deprive applicants of their right to own and carry firearms.”

Appealing to the Second Circuit, the gun owners claim Rakoff misapplied and misunderstood the text, history and tradition analysis under Bruen to be applied in Second Amendment challenges, and the viability of constitutional challenges to “exorbitant licensing fees.”

“Reversal of the district court decision is required here, because at the 12(b)(6) [motion to dismiss] stage Second Amendment challenges, the issue is only whether the law is being challenged affect the plaintiff’s right to acquire, possess and or carry arms,” attorney Amy Bellantoni told the three-judge Second Circuit panel during oral arguments on Tuesday morning.

Bellantoni told the panel New York City’s administrative constraints on gun purchasing “go right to the very heart of the plain text of the Second Amendment, which is the right to keep and bear, to have and possess, and right to acquire is necessarily wrapped up within the right to possess, because without the ability to acquire, then you have no possession and no carriage, you have no defense.”

U.S. Circuit Michael Park, a Donald Trump appointee, queried what the injury from the licensing fee and registration fees entails for gun buyers.

“We’re not at the stage right now yet where the city needs to justify requiring a permission slip, but I will say that the harm there is that without the ability to acquire at the point of purchase, my client has been harmed,” Bellantoni said. “He’s not been able to acquire the handgun and carry it and possess it for self-defense at that moment.”

Park also asked how mandatory waiting period was different from a presumptively permissible administrative delay for a background check.

Bellantoni said a waiting period of five to fifteen minutes to run the buyers’ background check would be sufficient.

“Now, 30 days, it’s not reasonable,” she said. “What are we waiting for? They’re already eligible law-abiding people, and now they have to be like children. You know, wait until they get permission to take their property out of the store. It makes it’s it makes no sense.”

Jeremy W. Shweder for the New York City Law Department meanwhile urged the panel to affirm the lower court’s dismissal, arguing the gun owners lack standing or their claims are moot.

“Plaintiffs have not adequately alleged that there are no set of circumstances under which the challenge regulations would be valid,” he told the Second Circuit on Tuesday. “Plaintiffs essentially argue that they satisfy their burden at step one merely by saying that there exists a firearm regulation and then pointing to the Second Amendment.”

Shweder said the buyers had not plausibly argued that the 90-day waiting period, an anti-trafficking measure, infringes their acquisition to the point of infringing the keeping or bearing of arms for self-defense.

“Stepping back, the anti-trafficking law is not a bar on the acquisition of firearms,” the city wrote in its appellate brief. “It is not a bar on keeping or bearing firearms; and it is not a bar on where firearms can be carried. It simply regulates the pace of additional firearm acquisitions by requiring someone who has just acquired a handgun — and may already have many more — to wait 90 days before purchasing an additional one.”

The city noted the Second Circuit has already upheld the constitutionality of the $340 licensing fees in Kwong v. Bloomberg, and that Bruen specifically contemplates licensing fees as long as they are not so exorbitant as to deny the right to keep and bear arms.

U.S. Circuit Judges Debra Ann Livingston and Reena Raggi, both appointed by George W. Bush, rounded out the panel, which did not indicate how or when it would rule.

Categories
All About Guns Another potential ENEMY OF THE PEOPLE Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Being a Stranger in a very Strange Land Cops Gun Fearing Wussies

Rep. Omar Calls For Federal Gun ‘Buyback’ by Mark Chesnut

I’m a big fan of U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar, the Somali congresswoman who always speaks her mind. Of course, I’m not a fan because I like her politics. But I do like the fact that nearly every time she speaks out in public, it serves as a warning for freedom-loving Americans that a true threat exists within our own federal lawmaking body.

Such was the case recently when Rep. Omar was caught on camera weighing in on a critical issue that many of us haven’t thought about for a while. In a video reposted on the Texas Gun Rights X page, Rep. Omar enthusiastically shared her views on registration and what always follows registration—confiscation.

“We have more guns in this country than we have humans,” she said in the video. “So, one of the things that is going to be important is to create a registry so we know where the guns are. We know when they go into the wrong hands when they’re stolen. And we can actually start a buyback program. I know that some of the Minnesota legislators have had that legislation, and that’s something that we should be thinking about on a federal level.”

It’s interesting that Rep. Omar would mention a “gun buyback” in the same breath as gun registration. Pro-gun advocates have warned for years that registration always leads to confiscation wherever it has been tried. Thus, anti-gun Democrats have avoided lumping the topics together.

As we’ve chronicled a number of times on TTAG, there are numerous other problems with gun “buybacks” besides the elephant in the room—eventual confiscation. First, they can’t be “buybacks” because the government never owned the firearms they are confiscating through compensation.

Categories
All About Guns Gun Fearing Wussies

New Yorkers Are Finally Learning How Hard the City Makes Gun Ownership by Scott Witner

Gun shops and instructors are slammed with residents trying to navigate the state’s maze of requirements just to exercise a basic constitutional right.

What many first-time buyers are discovering is that they can’t simply walk into a store, buy a gun, and walk out. Not that day. Not that week. Sometimes not even that year. The delays and layers of red tape are by design. New York’s political class has spent decades building a system that frustrates lawful citizens into giving up.

Fear Is Driving the Surge

After the Supreme Court struck down New York’s restrictive “may issue” carry scheme in Bruen, interest skyrocketed. But the rush started earlier. Crime spiked during the pandemic. Riots and looting hit the city. Police budgets were cut. Cashless bail kept violent offenders on the street. Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg’s policies turned the revolving door even faster. Add a wave of officer retirements, and many residents decided they were on their own.

Then came October 7, 2023. The Hamas attacks on Israel, paired with a rise in antisemitic crime at home, pushed many Jewish New Yorkers to start the permit process immediately. The election of avowed anti-gun, anti-police mayor Zorhan Mamdani sent another shockwave through the city. Police retirements spiked again.

Before Bruen, fewer than 100 New Yorkers per month applied for a carry permit. After Bruen, the monthly average climbed to 400–600. After October 7, applications hit an all-time record of more than 1,270 in a single month. Since then, 700–800 residents are applying monthly.

The New Gun Owner Is No Longer Who New York Politicians Pretend

The last several years have reshaped America’s gun-owning population. New York reflects that shift. New applicants include Jewish residents, Black and Hispanic residents, Asian Americans, and members of the LGBT community. The Second Amendment is for everyone, and people who never imagined owning a gun now see the value of self-reliance.

But the process is still a gauntlet. New York’s permit and purchase rules can drag out for a year or more. Mandatory courses are inconsistent and unstandardized, despite their length and cost. Buying a gun in the city is nothing like the experience in most of the country.

Instructors and Retailers Are Seeing a Full-Scale Awakening

Longtime firearms instructor Lance Dashefsky says the surge is tied directly to city leadership. “We ain’t fleeing. We’re here to stay. We’re not victims anymore,” he told the New York Post.

Brooklyn gun shop owner Michael Bergida sees the same concerns. “The NYPD is all retiring – we have to fight for ourselves,” he said.

Instructor Ross Den reports that even rabbis are preparing to carry. Synagogues are frequent targets, and congregations are no longer willing to depend on outside help that may not arrive in time. “People are beginning to wake up and realize they have to defend themselves,” Den said.

The Industry Stands With New Yorkers Who Want to Take Responsibility for Their Own Protection

Despite the hoops residents must jump through, gun shops across the city continue helping first-time buyers understand the process and get the training they need.
Anyone “gun curious” will find an industry ready to answer questions and help them navigate the system built to slow them down.

“We are Jewish and we will protect ourselves,” one woman told the Post. “We will have a say in our protection and not have to rely on others.”

That mindset is becoming more common across New York City. The right to keep and bear arms belongs to every law-abiding American, and more New Yorkers are deciding they’re done letting the city decide for them.

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Gun Fearing Wussies

FPC Trashes DOJ’s “Horrifically Flawed” Brief In Machine Gun Ban Appeal by Mark Chesnut

A brief filed by the federal government in the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals in a case involving the constitutionality of banning machine guns has one pro-gun rights group seeing red.

The case United States v. Justin Bryce Brown revolves around the federal government charging Justice Bryce Brown with knowingly possessing a machine gun in violation of federal law. Brown’s attorney argued that under the landmark 2022 decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, the statute was unconstitutional as applied to him.

A district court dismissed the charge against Brown in January, holding that the ban violated the Second Amendment as it applied to him. The government then appealed to the Fifth Circuit.

A brief filed April 24 by Patrick Lemon, acting U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of Mississippi, argued that “machine guns are not the kind of arms protected by the Second Amendment,” and that America’s “history of regulating dangerous and unusual weapons confirms [the federal machine gun ban’s] constitutionality.” The brief drew quick condemnation from the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), which called the brief both “horribly flawed” and “insanely offensive.”

One portion of the brief that really set the gun-rights group off was when Lemon cited The Trace, a rabidly anti-gun instrument of Michael Bloomberg’s so-called Everytown for Gun Safety, as his source of information.

“Acting U.S. Attorney Lemon’s horrifically flawed brief is unprincipled and an incredible affront to the People and our constitutionally protected rights,”  Brandon Combs, FPC president, said in a press release about the brief. “Not only does this lemon of a brief expressly advance anti-liberty arguments, it went so far as to cite the radically anti-Second Amendment Everytown propaganda publication, The Trace, in support of its position. This brief could not be less consistent with President Trump’s ‘Protecting Second Amendment Rights’ executive order.”

Since President Trump’s executive order on protecting the Second Amendment does matter—or at least it should to Lemon—Combs said the brief should prompt the president and Attorney General Pam Bondi to look into Lemon’s ability to respect the executive order. After all, the U.S. Attorney filed the poorly thought-out brief on behalf of the federal government, which Trump heads.

“This insanely offensive brief should never have been filed in any court, let alone at the Fifth Circuit,” Combs continued. “It should be immediately withdrawn and thrown into the trash, along with Mr. Lemon’s ability to make these filings in the future.”

Combs added that the Lemon filing is a prime example of why the organization has been asking President Trump to appoint a competent Second Amendment czar to coordinate the administration’s agenda across the government and with stakeholders in Second Amendment litigation.

“Our rights must be protected at all costs and the American people are counting on President Trump and Attorney General Bondi to fulfill their promise to do just that,” he concluded.

Categories
A Victory! Gun Fearing Wussies

New Mexico Lawmakers Scuttle Anti-Gun Bills by Mark Chesnut

Facing dire consequences if anti-gun legislation made it through the legislature and went to gun-hating Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham’s desk for consideration, New Mexico gun owners dodged a bullet recently when two bad measures didn’t survive the legislative process.

One such measure, SB 318, attempted to allow attacks on gun makers and gun retailers by subverting the federal Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. Specifically, it would have expanded the New Mexico Unfair Practices Act to include firearms, parts and accessories, imposing severe penalties of $30,000 per violation and holding manufacturers, distributors and online platforms jointly liable for actions by third parties.

“It allows private lawsuits without proof of harm and grants sweeping authority to the Attorney General to pursue civil penalties,” NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action said in a news alert. “This overreach increases compliance costs, threatens lawful businesses with excessive litigation and raises serious constitutional and interstate commerce concerns, all while doing little to address criminal misuse of firearms.”

Fortunately for New Mexico gun owners, the measure was never taken up by the full senate.

Another measure, SB 279, would have banned gas-operated, semi-automatic rifles, along with firearms magazines holding more than 10 rounds of ammo.

Owners of such guns wanting to keep them would have to “certify” them with the government, creating a gun registry that could easily be used when and if the government later voted to confiscate those guns. That measure was approved in the Senate Judiciary Committee but was never considered in the Senate Finance Committee.

For those readers who don’t remember Gov. Lujan Grisham, she’s the person who last year signed, then re-signed, an executive order banning the carry of firearms in public parks and playgrounds in Albuquerque and surrounding Bernalillo County under the auspices of public safety. That order resulted in a number of lawsuits by gun-rights groups.

Of course, Gov. Lujan Grisham wasn’t pleased that the two bills discussed above weren’t passed by the legislature and sent to her for her signature.

“While we made progress on universal free school lunch, literacy, water planning, and firefighting resources, I cannot ignore that we failed to adequately address the public safety crisis facing our state,” the governor said in a prepared statement. “With 270 public safety bills introduced this session and only a handful passed, we have not met our responsibility to New Mexicans.”

There’s no doubt that Gov. Lujan Grisham will continue to fight to further infringe on the Second Amendment rights of New Mexico’s lawful gun owners. As she said last year during the uproar over her Albuquerque carry ban, “No constitutional right, in my view … is intended to be absolute.”

Categories
All About Guns California Gun Fearing Wussies

I had a HK91 once before California said I could’nt, oh well!

A German G3 Rifle (7.62x51mm NATO)

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Gun Fearing Wussies

So, Where’s the Worst Gun Bill in America Now?

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" Gun Fearing Wussies

9th Circuit Strikes Down 2 Hawaii Gun Restrictions Mark Chesnut

Many gun owners are unaware that Hawaii has some of the most restrictive gun control laws in the nation. Now, however, thanks to a recent circuit court decision, two of those restrictions have been overturned.

On March 14, a three-judge panel of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in the case Yukutake v. Lopez upheld a district court ruling striking down two of the provisions to the Aloha State’s gun laws. One involved the very short time (10 days) a firearms purchaser has to buy a gun after receiving the permit required to make a firearms purchase.

“The panel affirmed the district court’s judgment that the short timeframe for completing the purchase of a firearm after obtaining a permit was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment,” the ruling stated. “The purchase and acquisition of firearms is conduct protected by the plain text of the Second Amendment. Because § 134-2(e) regulates conduct covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text, the Second Amendment presumptively protects that conduct. The burden, therefore, fell on the State to justify its regulation by demonstrating that it is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearms regulation.”

As the opinion explained, 10 days is a very short period, despite the state arguing otherwise.

“Although the State presumably has a valid interest in ensuring that the background-check results are not stale, the State pointed to no evidence that anything over 10 days or 30 days counts as stale,” the ruling stated. “In Section IV(B)(4) of the opinion, the panel concluded that the temporal limitation was ‘abusive’ within the meaning of Bruen and remanded for the district court to revise its permanent injunction, as appropriate, in light of the recent amendment to § 134-2(e) and to conform to the panel’s ruling.”

The other struck-down provision that was upheld by the circuit court was the requirement for gun buyers to bring their new guns to the police station for an in-person inspection. According to the ruling, this restriction is also overly burdensome and, therefore, unconstitutional.

“Even assuming arguendo that Hawaii’s basic system of registering firearms by owner, type, serial number, etc., was valid under Bruen—a point the panel did not decide—Hawaii’s broad in-person inspection requirement could not be justified as merely a proper ancillary logistical measure in support of such a system,” the ruling stated. “The government failed to point to evidence supporting its conclusion that the addition of a broadly applicable and burdensome physical inspection requirement will materially advance the objectives of the registration system.

As with plaintiffs’ challenge to § 134-2(e), the panel remanded to the district court to revise its permanent injunction, as appropriate, in light of the recent amendment to § 134-3 and to conform to the panel’s ruling.”

Lawful Hawaii gun owners shouldn’t begin celebrating too soon, however. It’s likely the state will ask for the entire 9th Circuit to consider the case sometime in the future.

 

Categories
All About Guns Anti Civil Rights ideas & "Friends" California Darwin would of approved of this! Gun Fearing Wussies You have to be kidding, right!?!

California Gun Owners Beware: ‘Duty to Retreat’ Required in New Bill by Dave Workman

The California gun prohibition lobby is hailing a new Assembly bill that includes a duty to retreat “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,” but the measure is drawing a barrage of criticism from Republicans.

According to a synopsis of Assembly Bill 1333, introduced by Democrat State Rep. Rick Chavez Zbur (51st District), “This bill would eliminate certain circumstances under which homicide is justifiable, including, among others, in defense of a habitation or property.”

In a statement released by Everytown for Gun Safety on behalf of the California chapters of Moms Demand Action and Students Demand Action, Everytown Senior Vice President for Government Affairs Monisha Henley asserted, “This legislation builds on California’s gun safety legacy and lays the blueprint for the rest of the nation. 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. We thank Assemblymember Zbur for his commitment to gun safety and listening to advocates and experts on ways to keep Californians safe from gun violence.”

Translation: Shoot a thug in self-defense and risk being smeared as a right-wing racist, and probably prosecuted.

But the San Joaquin Valley Sun is reporting that Zbur, faced with massive criticism, is apparently re-thinking his bill, and he has “promised to amend the proposal to not take away self-defense rights after Republicans came out against it in force.”

The California Globe is quoting Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco, who is also a Republican candidate for governor in 2026.

“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 reportedly said.

 

“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. Prop 36 should have been a wake-up call – Californians are sick and tired of crime, and they are demanding that leaders in Sacramento do something about it. Unfortunately for us, Legislative Democrats can’t put aside their backwards ideology. It’s time for a change.”

Likewise, the San Joaquin Valley Sun is reporting statements from a couple of Zbur’s colleagues, both Republicans.

“If you thought California Democrats couldn’t be more out of touch, here’s another example,” Assemblyman David Tangipa of Clovis said. “Where do you retreat if you can’t defend yourself in your own home?”

Assemblyman Tom Lackey of Palmdale called AB 1333 “a complete assault on self-defense.”

“The misguided energy behind this proposal is beyond comprehension,” Lackey said in a post on “X.”

Here is the language in AB 1333 which is raising the ire of Golden State gun owners and even the Riverside County Sheriff.

“Homicide is not justifiable when committed by a person in all of the following cases:

(1) 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.

(2) When the person used more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against a danger.

(3) When the person was the assailant, engaged in mutual combat, or knowingly engaged in conduct reasonably likely to provoke a person to commit a felony or do some great bodily injury, except if either of the following circumstances apply:

(A) The person reasonably believed that they were in imminent danger of death or great bodily injury, and had exhausted every reasonable means to escape such danger other than the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily injury.

 

(B) In good faith, the person withdrew from the encounter with the other assailant or assailants and indicated clearly to the other assailant or assailants that the person desired to withdraw and terminated the use of any force, but the other assailant or assailants continued or resumed the use of force.”

The Globe story also noted, “the huge limitation of self-defense outraged many over the past weekend.”

An unscientific, online survey by KMPH News shows the bill getting an overwhelming negative reaction from respondents. Asked if they agree “with making self-defense against criminals illegal,” a whopping 97 percent were saying “No.”

Under AB 1333, homicide would still be justifiable under these circumstances:

“(1) When resisting any attempt to murder any person or to do some great bodily injury upon any person.

“(2) When committed in defense of a person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors in a violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any person therein.

“(3) When committed in the lawful defense of such person, or of a spouse, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to do some great bodily injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished.”

While Democrats dominate the Assembly in Sacramento, the reaction so far to AB 1333 is sending a clear message that Zbur’s proposal has crossed way over the line.