It seems California has a new bill that one lawmaker thinks the state badly needs. It seeks to address the state's self-defense laws.

Believe it or not, California's self-defense laws aren't completely and totally awful. They have a version of the Castle Doctrine and are, more or less, a Stand Your Ground state. Of course, that doesn't mean you won't get prosecuted for actually exercising your right to defend yourself, but the law is generally on your side.

The bill seeks to change that.

And one sheriff who happens to be also running for governor has a problem with it.

A California sheriff is speaking out against a bill in the Democrat-controlled capital of Sacramento that he says would essentially make self-defense illegal and believes is emblematic of liberal policies putting people in danger in the state. 

After Assembly Bill 1333 was introduced in California two weeks ago, Riverside County Sheriff Chad Bianco gained traction on social media with a post reacting to the bill which he says will essentially make self-defense illegal in the state. 

Los Angeles Assembly member Rick Zbur introduced the bill, which he says aims to narrow the criteria for justifiable homicide, but Bianco told Fox News Digital that the bill will just further embolden criminals. 

"This Assembly member that has come up with this, If it was his idea, he certainly has absolutely no business being an assembly member representing people," Bianco said. "And, what my knowledge is of how things happen in Sacramento, I'm not giving him an out because he certainly had some talking points for this bill, but these are bills written by special interest groups and the majority of the special interest in Sacramento are pro-criminal."

The bill itself states that “homicide is not justifiable” if “the person used more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against a danger.” That's just for starters and we'll get to the worst part after a bit.

Now, this hypothetically doesn't mean retreat is dictated in a self-defense situation, but it's also pretty clear how the law can be applied. A prosecutor could argue that you don't have to use any force to defend yourself if you tried to run away.

Plus, let's keep in mind that there are a lot of people who have no clue about use of force who have very strong opinions on it. Some will talk about someone driving a car and trying to run another person over as being unarmed, all despite the two-ton missile they're operating. They think a gun is a step up in force from a knife or a hammer.

So Bianco calling this bill "pro-criminal," he's not wrong. Especially considering what I'll hit on in a second.

At a minimum, it'll cause indecision in a life-or-death situation, a time when indecision is probably the worst thing you could have.

More realistically, though, a lot of good guys are going to get jammed up because the prosecutor decided that you used too much force.

It should be mentioned that Zubr claims he's just trying to prevent another Kyle Rittenhouse.

However, it should also be noted that the bill itself includes some language that makes it explicit that you cannot justifiably kill someone. Let's revisit that bit above about "more force than necessary" for a second. Here's the complete passage. [Emphasis added]

This bill would eliminate certain circumstances under which homicide is justifiable, including, among others, in defense of a habitation or property. The bill would additionally clarify circumstances in which homicide is not justifiable, including, among others, when a person uses more force than necessary to defend against a danger.

You won't have the right to defend your home at all. The presence of a home invader won't be accepted as default evidence that your life was in danger.

Plus, if you use more force than some prosecutor thinks was justified, even if your life was in danger, you're still going to get prosecuted.

Bianco, as a law enforcement officer, understands criminals better than an assemblyman who is more intent on restricting law-abiding citizens than criminals. They're going to have a field day if this law actually gets passed. They're going to know they can do whatever they want and that law-abiding citizens are going to be powerless to stop them.

At best, it'll be relegated just to property crime, but only an idiot would assume that would be the case in real life.

This will be just as bad as when they decided not to prosecute shoplifting, only on a grander scale.