California AB 1333

[Coach is Back!]

i=uEhpj8e4hEn8FbMM

i=qxWFD073uFoA_Zej

[IroNat]

Clown World.

[Humble Narcissist]

How do states get away with unconstitutional laws?

[falco]

Totalitarian states want power over every aspects of societal life. Even in the privacy of home, hence why they are against property ownership.

[IroNat]

California Democrat Rushes to Amend Bill That Would Limit Self-Defense

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2025/03/03/california-democrat-rushes-to-amend-bill-that-would-limit-self-defense/

[Coach is Back!]

How do states get away with unconstitutional laws?

This was already settled back in 2022, NYSRP vs. Bruen. Blue states trying to circumvent the decision by making up their own laws knowing full well it’s goes against the Second and Fourteenth Amendments they also know as long they keep in the courts for years, they can get away with enforcing it (providing local sheriffs and LE go along with it) until it’s heard by the SCOTUS when in that case would be overturned

[Coach is Back!]

https://x.com/survivors_pac/status/1894875991325188352?s=46

[SF1900]

https://x.com/survivors_pac/status/1894875991325188352?s=46

Moms Demand Action answered some questions.

https://momsdemandaction.org/press/fact-sheet-ab-1333-is-life-saving-legislation-aimed-at-preventing-those-who-shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later/

So, it seems like the bill is about disengagement outside of the home. The above group states: "If a person is under attack, and it’s necessary to use deadly force to protect themselves from serious harm, they are still entitled to use deadly force. What this legislation does is make clear that Californians must avoid killing others if it’s not truly necessary—that they must de-escalate or disengage if possible."

This is very odd. If you are outside of your home, say in the grocery store, and there is a mass shooter, you may be able to safely retreat and not kill the mass shooter. On the other hand, why not take down the threat? If Im in a grocery store and there is a mass shooter, I would feel under attack, but may also be able to disengage the situation. So, if I dont disengage and kill the mass shooter, then I am held liable? 

This is very vague language.

[Gym Rat]

Libturdz are the dumbest and whackiest kuntz on  the planet.

Funk spends his days talking to himself in a goofy Trump thread, and libs like that never comment on real bullshit, like this commie/braindead law.
Grape tried talking sense to Funk, but impossible. Fake meme's and vids. That's all flaky libturds have.

They strive on hate and lies. Not a nut between the whole cult of them.
Dripping kvnts maybe. No balls or brains...

[Coach is Back!]

Moms Demand Action answered some questions.

https://momsdemandaction.org/press/fact-sheet-ab-1333-is-life-saving-legislation-aimed-at-preventing-those-who-shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later/

So, it seems like the bill is about disengagement outside of the home. The above group states: "If a person is under attack, and it’s necessary to use deadly force to protect themselves from serious harm, they are still entitled to use deadly force. What this legislation does is make clear that Californians must avoid killing others if it’s not truly necessary—that they must de-escalate or disengage if possible."

This is very odd. If you are outside of your home, say in the grocery store, and there is a mass shooter, you may be able to safely retreat and not kill the mass shooter. On the other hand, why not take down the threat? If Im in a grocery store and there is a mass shooter, I would feel under attack, but may also be able to disengage the situation. So, if I dont disengage and kill the mass shooter, then I am held liable? 

This is very vague language.

If you don't know what "moms demand action" is,  they are a federally funded gun control lobby founded by gun control twat named Shannon Watts. I've been blocked by both of those accounts, same with Giffords. What this basically does is target law abiding ccw holders because In order to carry outside the home you have to have a permit, which is unconstitutional on its face. This would give more power to the criminal. How I interpret this is the 2008 directive by Obama to the military to not engage first, don't shoot or attack unless they shoot or attack first. Same basic premise. This will pass in the house, then it's up to Newsom to sign it into law, which, to be fair might not because he's more than likely going to be running in 2028 and he doesn't want to rock the boat nationally. In short, these people are fucking lunatics.