Will Self-Defense Become a Crime in California?!
Assembly Bill 1333 was introduced in the California Assembly on February 21st, and it has already proven to be political lightning rod. Opponents of the bill say that this bill undermines self-defense protections, making it illegal to defend your home from criminals who would invade it. On the other hand, supporters say the bill simply clarifies current self-defense law and prevents unnecessary violence from occurring. Which is it? What is true and should we support or oppose this bill as it makes its way through our legislature?
Introduction to AB 1333
Let’s dive straight into the text of the bill. What does it actually say?
According to the introduction to the bill, it says:
“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.”[1]
This bill would amend state law to make it illegal to kill someone in certain self-defense situations, like defending your home, or any situation where it’s deemed by the court that you used more force than was necessary.
Current State Law – Penal Code Section 197
What does state law currently say about this? Let’s go through Section 197 of the California Penal Code together. There are four situations outlined in Section 197 of the California Penal Code that define when committing homicide is legally justifiable.
The first is, “When resisting any attempt to murder any person, or to commit a felony, or to do some great bodily injury upon any person.”[2]
This means that if a person is trying to murder someone, then deadly force may be used to stop them. Similarly, if a person is trying to commit a felony, like robbery, kidnapping, assault with a deadly weapon, domestic violence, rape, or burglary, then again, deadly force can be used to stop them. Last on the list is if a person is trying to inflict serious physical harm on a person – so not even if they’re necessarily trying to kill them, but if they will inflict serious injury – then that’s another scenario where they can use deadly force.
The second situation when homicide is legal is, “When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person [someone] manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, OR 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]
This means that deadly force may be used in defense of property when someone enters your home by surprise. So, if someone unlawfully enters your home in the middle of the night, and you are home, that is classified a felony, and under this section of the penal code, you are protected to use deadly force in defense of that property because a felony was committed by surprise. Then, it goes on to say that if someone enters your home in a violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner with the intent to commit violence, so not just by surprise but with intent, that you are also permitted to use deadly force to defend yourself.
This goes hand in hand with the Castle Doctrine, which is mentioned in a later section of the penal code. The Castle Doctrine says that if someone enters your home forcibly and unlawfully, the law presumes that you have a reasonable fear of injury or death. This is important, because an intruder does not have to be armed for you to be permitted to use deadly force. You shouldn’t have to prove in court that the intruder was armed in order to justify fear for your life. The Castle Doctrine outlines three elements that need to be present in a situation to justifiably use deadly force:
An intruder or burglar unlawfully and forcibly enters or attempts to enter your home,
You, or the resident of the home, reasonably believe that the intruder unlawfully and forcibly entered or was entering your home, and
The intruder is not a member of your household or family.[4]
If those three elements exist, then you do not have to prove that an intruder made threats, had a weapon, or did anything else to indicate potential violence or cause fear; you have a right to fear for your life, and to act in self-defense including by using deadly force, just by the nature of the fact that someone unlawfully broke into your home.
The third situation when homicide is legal is, “When committed in the lawful defense of a spouse, parent, child, master, mistress, or servant of such person, when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do some great bodily injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished; but such person, or the person in whose behalf the defense was made, if he or she was the assailant or engaged in mutual combat, must really and in good faith have endeavored to decline any further struggle before the homicide was committed.”[5]
This section is specifically speaking to homicide in defense of others. You can lawfully use deadly force to protect others in your household if you have a reasonable belief that an attacker is about to commit a felony – like murder, robbery, or assault – or cause them serious physical harm. It does outline that the threat must be immediate, meaning the threat has to be happening in real time, and that if you are engaged in mutual combat or you initiated a fight with the intruder, you have to have made a good faith attempt to deescalate the fight before committing homicide. So, you couldn’t hold someone who broke into your home if they were attempting to escape you for the purpose of killing them, but obviously if they are actively attacking you and you are afraid for your life, then deadly force is justified.
Lastly, this section outlines that deadly force is legal when, “Necessarily committed in attempting, by lawful ways and means, to apprehend any person for any felony committed, or in lawfully suppressing any riot, or in lawfully keeping and preserving the peace.”[6] This means that if deadly force is necessary for law enforcement in apprehending the person who committed the felony, or to keep the peace generally, then it is permitted.
How Would AB 1333 Change Current Law?
How would AB 1333 change these existing laws?
For the first scenario, current law states that deadly force may be used to stop a person from committing a felony or inflicting serious bodily harm on someone else. AB 1333 would change this language to only permit deadly force when resisting murder or bodily harm, removing the current wording to protect from a felony. So, already AB 1333 is limiting homicide as a form of self-defense against felonies; deadly force can only be used in cases of attempted murder or great bodily harm.
For the second scenario, AB 1333 removes the entire first section about defending yourself or your home if someone unlawfully enters by surprise to commit a felony. It would only leave the second half of the scenario, when someone enters in a violent, riotous, or tumultuous manner. This means that the legal justification for using deadly force is now more restricted and less automatic in certain scenarios. Under current law, someone can use deadly force simply because an intruder enters their home with the intention of committing a felony, even if there isn’t immediate threat of injury. Under the proposed amendments, the threat of serious harm or imminent danger must be present. As an example, if an intruder was just attempting to steal something, but it wasn’t clear that they were posing an immediate threat of harm, then deadly force might not be justifiable under the new law, even if you feared for your life because someone who is not related to you is in your house in the middle of the night. Removing this phrase essentially shifts the focus away from the intent to commit a felony and toward actual, immediate danger to life or serious injury.
For the third scenario, AB 1333 similarly removes justification for homicide when defending others from felonies being committed against them. It only says that deadly force is permissible when defending from threat “to do some great bodily injury, and imminent danger of such design being accomplished.” And lastly, it completely removes the entire fourth scenario of using deadly force to apprehend a person for committing a felony, to prevent rioting, or to keep the peace.
But, as if all those changes weren’t enough, AB 1333 adds some new language of its own, specifically outlining situations in which homicide is not protected under law.
It first says deadly force is not permissible 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.”[7] Let me break this down. This is what’s known as a Duty to Retreat Law.
Duty to retreat is a legal principle that requires you to try to retreat or escape from a dangerous situation before using force, especially deadly force. There are currently eleven states in our country that are Duty to Retreat states, where they have provisions just like what is proposed in AB 1333, requiring residents to escape dangerous situations first, before using force to defend themselves. The alternative to Duty to Retreat states are Stand Your Ground states – which is what California currently is. Stand your ground laws make it clear that you have no obligation to retreat from a threatening situation. These laws allow you to use force, even deadly force, if necessary, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to protect yourself.[8] Assembly Bill 1333 would effectively change our state from a Stand Your Ground state to a Duty to Retreat state.
But that isn’t all, the added text continues. It also outlines that deadly force is not permissible if a person uses more force than is reasonably necessary, and if a person “knowingly engaged in conduct reasonably likely to provoke a person to commit a felony or do some great bodily injury,” except if they had imminent danger of death or desired to withdraw from the combat and couldn’t.[9] Effectively, if you use deadly force to protect yourself from an attacker, you will have to prove in court that that force was reasonably necessary and that you couldn’t otherwise escape from the attack.
Support & Opposition
Who is in support of this bill and who is opposed to it?
AB 1333 was introduced by Assemblymember Rick Chavez Zbur,[10] who represents Assembly District 51 – which, to no one’s surprise, encompasses Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Westwood Village, and Santa Monica.[11] Because those areas are where we really want to redefine self-defense and potentially incentivize crime. But, I’m getting ahead of myself. Assemblymember Zbur claims that the bill is meant to ensure that people feel safe in public spaces,[12] and to, “Prevent wannabe vigilantes like Kyle Rittenhouse from provoking violence & claiming self-defense after the fact.”[13] The bill seems to be supported by groups like Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America[14] and Everytown for Gun Safety.[15]
However, this bill has garnered a ton of backlash. Los Angeles Deputy District Attorney, Jonathan Hatami, responded to Zbur’s claims about the bill being intended for the public to feel safe, and not to restrict defense of self and property, by condemning the bill as taking away Californians’ rights to defend their families and children.[16] Craig DeLuz, who is the Director of Communications for the California Republican Assembly, said the bill doesn’t work in real life, “My first reaction was, clearly this is offered by someone who does not understand use of force law, does not understand use of force situations. What this does is it puts them in a situation where they could potentially hesitate, and it could cost them or someone they love their lives.”[17] Similarly, defense attorney Mike Wise, reiterated that the bill could complicate self-defense cases and doesn’t work in real-world cases. He said, "Having tried a lot of homicide cases over the last 30 years, this is the kind of legislation that might sound good in a classroom, but it is not going to help jurors making critical decisions. [California's current self-defense law] has stood the test of time. It is common sense, and it makes sense to jurors. This modification really overcomplicates it, and I do not think it is going to fly in a courtroom."[18]
The most prominent critic so far is Candidate for California Governor, Sheriff Chad Bianco, who condemned the bill quickly after it was introduced, warning that, “If a criminal attacks you or your family and you defend yourself and that criminal dies as a result of his criminal behavior, you could be arrested and charged for murder."[19]
Self-Defense in the Constitution
What about the Constitution? Would AB 1333 violate your constitutional right to self-defense?
Well, the Constitution doesn’t explicitly state a right to self-defense or defense of property. However, the right to self-defense is generally understood from the Constitution because it is rooted in several of its fundamental principles, including the Second Amendment and broader concepts of natural rights and due process. The Second Amendment speaks directly to the right to bear arms, which court rulings and legal traditions have interpreted over the years to grant the right to bear arms as essential for self-defense – which would include defense of oneself, family, and property – against threats from criminals or government overreach.
Outside of the right to firearms, the right to self-defense could also be seen as a natural right, inherent to all people as part of the broader idea that you as an individual have the right to preserve your life and your property. So, then self-defense would be viewed as a fundamental, pre-existing right that is recognized and protected by law, even if not explicitly outlined in the Constitution. This stems from philosophical traditions like those of John Locke, who argued that self-defense and the defense of property are inherent rights for all individuals.[20]
You could also look to the Fifth Amendment, which reads as: "No person shall be… deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."[21] Because this includes protections for life and property and conclude indirectly support the right to self-defense and property defense. This establishes that individuals have the right to protect their life and property from unlawful threats. While the amendment doesn’t explicitly mention self-defense, the idea that you cannot be deprived of your life or property without due process suggests that individuals can take action to protect those rights when immediate threats arise.
But, with all of that said, the Constitution provides a framework for rights to self-defense, but it does not prescribe exactly how states have to handle them. Going back to the Tenth Amendment, as we’ve discussed before on this show, states are allowed to enact their own laws regarding self-defense and defense of property, which is how there are eleven states already that have moved from Stand Your Ground policies to Duty to Retreat legislation. These laws clearly have been allowed to stand in these eleven states, and that’s similar to how states can be sanctuary states with regard to immigration. Constitutional law grants the right to reasonable force to protect oneself, but deadly force is typically only justifiable when there is an immediate threat. State laws have the right to regulate self-defense within constitutional limits. The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently held that states have the power to establish rules for self-defense, so long as those rules do not outright contradict federal rights. The argument from proponents of AB 1333 then is that the bill doesn’t violate the Constitution because it still ensures a right to self-defense when in imminent danger. It clarifies when and how deadly force is justified. It basically establishes that deadly force is a last resort, and when it is used, it must be proportional to the threat, which technically aligns with established constitutional principles of self-defense. So, I don’t believe that AB 1333 violates the Constitution in technicality, but Constitutionality isn’t the only aspect to consider.
Response
So, what else should we consider? What should our response be to the introduction of this bill?
My response has three main points:
1. AB 1333 furthers the incentivization of crime, which the people of California do not want,
2. It disregards the critical duty of government to protect the people under its care, and
3. It abandons government’s primary responsibility to promote what is good by instead facilitating what is wrong.
First, AB 1333 further incentivizes crime. How? It should be absolutely clear to see that when you refuse to punish or enforce consequences for criminal behavior, you get more of it. Proposition 47 is the prime example of this. You’ll remember from previous articles that as soon as Prop. 47 went into effect – lowering the penalties on theft and drug crime in California – law enforcement saw an immediate uptick in these crimes being committed, as well as frequent reoffenders. And this outcome makes sense, because if someone knows that they will be facing a felony offense if they shoplift or buy drugs, especially on a third or fourth offense, they may think twice about doing it; but, if they know for a fact that law enforcement can’t do anything about it, that they can stack up misdemeanors and nothing will happen to them, then what is to stop them from committing as much theft or drug crime as they want, just under the thresholds that will really get them in trouble?
It might seem different, but really AB 1333 is the same. If you as a criminal know that the law empowers individuals to protect themselves and their families, you might be wary of breaking into someone’s home for the purpose of committing a violent offense, or attacking someone on the street, or trying to steal from someone’s home at night when they might be there. But, if you know that the law does NOT protect residents, and that they will be more likely to hesitate because they are afraid of ending up in prison for murder, then you are emboldened to seize that second of hesitation and use it to your advantage in committing crime.
The people of California don’t want this. This is directly opposite to what we voted for back in November. We passed Proposition 36 with 70% of the vote, which increased the penalties back up from what they were under Prop. 47. Nathan Hochman, a former Republican and current Independent, defeated incumbent and notoriously soft on crime LA District Attorney George Gascon by a margin of 61 to 39 percent.[22]
Several political strategists commented on the election results as voters’ communication to their government leaders that they have had enough of policies that incentivize crime. One Republican strategist put it this way, “People don’t want to be told that crime rates are low when razor blades and hair spray have to be locked up.” A Democrat consultant noted, “The election was a real slap in the face to the governor and Legislature — telling them that they are completely out of touch with the voters regarding crime.” And lastly, a key theme was that this wasn’t a partisan issue, but a common sense one, “It wasn’t about right or left. It was a ‘duh’ moment. If you go in and steal, you should go to jail.”[23]
Our elected leaders need to look honestly at what the people they represent are concerned about and what kinds of policies they want. Californians are worried about the crime rates in our state. They are tired of theft and burglaries and violent crime. They voted for change. It’s insulting for our Legislature to be entertaining bills that go in the exact opposite direction of the reforms they want to see in place – reforms that will bring crime rates down and let residents feel safe again in their communities.
Second, AB 1333 disregards the critical duty of government to protect the people under its care. I mentioned natural rights and John Locke earlier, and I want to return to our philosophical influencers who formed the basis that our government would be founded on. He argued that the government's primary function is to protect life, liberty, and property. If your government fails to do this, then he argued that you as the people have the right to alter or abolish it. In a limited government framework, protection doesn’t mean absolute control, but it does mean ensuring that individuals have the freedom to protect themselves while still enforcing justice.[24] Locke wasn’t alone in these beliefs. Thomas Hobbes and Jean-Jacques Rousseau suggested that people give up some freedoms in exchange for government protection. This was the social contract. Government had a duty, they argued, to prevent chaos and enact order.[25]
This brings us to our nation’s Constitution, wherein its very Preamble states that one of the primary purposes of government is to “ensure domestic tranquility” and “provide for the common defense.”[26] This established a foundational duty of the federal government to protect citizens from internal and external threats. We see this carried out in how the government enforces laws to maintain order, prevent crime, and protect individual rights. Our military and law enforcement serve as mechanisms to protect against foreign and domestic threats. Then this comes down even more granularly on the state level as well. Article I, Section 1 of California’s own constitution states, “All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.”[27] This suggests that the state recognizes a duty to safeguard life, liberty, and property while ensuring safety and privacy.
Government has a duty to look out for the welfare of its people. It of course can’t guarantee every individual resident’s wellbeing or safety, but at the very least it shouldn’t actively harm them. This bill strips away fundamental and necessary rights for individuals to do what is necessary to protect themselves and their families.
Think for a second about having to make a choice between protecting your life, or the life of your loved one, and also weighing the reality that you may end up in a lengthy and arduous trial process to prove your innocence, and even in jail, if you can’t prove that you had grounds to believe your life was in imminent danger. That’s a terrifying place to be. Or think about what you would do to protect your kids. Of course, as a parent you would be willing to do anything for them, even if it meant going to prison to save their lives, but you also have to grapple with the reality that they would then grow up without a parent. These aren’t worst-case, fringe scenarios, they’re the very scenarios that legislation like this bill create. Who gets to decide if you used an unreasonable amount of force? Who determines if you really believed your life was in danger? Why is it fair to demand you run for your life, forcing you to retreat, rather than using the means at your disposal to guarantee your safety against someone who is looking to harm you?
These are the scary implications of what happens when the government leaves people on their own, refusing to protect them, stand with them, and back them when wicked criminals would do them harm.
Which brings me to my last point, that this bill abandons government’s primary responsibility to promote what is good by instead facilitating what is wrong. We just saw that ultimately government should promote the good of the people in its jurisdiction. Government should work for the people, with leaders to represent the people. Biblically we know this is true, because Romans 13 clearly outlines that government is to punish the evildoer and uphold righteousness. What is the point of government if not to make life better, more just and more orderly, for its own people? But this bill completely flips the narrative of right and wrong. Proponents of it are more concerned with protecting criminals who would break into people’s homes or attack them on the streets than they are about protecting the people who are in danger. Why else would our government leaders focus on passing a bill like this? They want to take away the rights of law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves to ensure that criminals don’t face the consequences of their actions. This is a complete perversion of justice. The Bible says in Romans 13:3, “Rulers are not a terror to good conduct, but to bad. Would you have no fear of the one who is in authority? Then do what is good, and you will receive his approval.” Citizens who act with good conduct are not supposed to fear the government who rules over them, because the government is supposed to punish bad conduct and approve of good conduct. But if California would give more rights to a home invader and potentially incriminate a person defending his life, or his family’s lives, then our government is promoting what is wrong by punishing the person who does the RIGHT thing and rewarding the criminal who does the WRONG thing. This is a complete abandonment of where its priorities are supposed to lie. Our representatives in the State Senate and Assembly should spend less time worrying about if literal criminals will be in danger for carrying out dangerous criminal activity, and instead focus on protecting the people who are living normal, peaceful lives.
This bill is a complete and total injustice, and it cannot be allowed to go any further. We need to take action. I have an article on my website that I will link below that walks you through the steps of how to find your state representatives and contact them – and I would encourage you to do that! This bill was just introduced, and so it has many steps to go – steps where it can be shelved or rejected altogether. We need to stand up and make our voices heard that we will not tolerate AB 1333 passing in our state. And then, go back and listen to last week’s episode about the 2026 Governor’s Race and get inspired to get to work on changing public opinion for the next election. We have to vote out this quite frankly terrible, out of touch, and downright wicked leadership, and replace them with those dedicated to goodness and truth.
It's time to hold our leaders to account for their duties to protect us and to respect our priorities and values as residents of their state. We cannot let this go unnoticed and overlooked. Your life, the lives of your loved ones, and the good of your community are all at stake.
References:
[1] Zbur, Rick. “Bill Text - AB-1333 Crimes: Homicide.” California Legislative Information, February 21, 2025. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=202520260AB1333.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Shouse Law Group. “California Penal Code § 198.5 PC - the ‘Castle Doctrine,’” June 1, 2024. https://www.shouselaw.com/ca/defense/penal-code/198-5/.
[5] Zbur, “Bill Text - AB-1333 Crimes: Homicide.”
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] United States Concealed Carry Association. “What Is a Duty to Retreat Law?,” January 18, 2024. https://www.usconcealedcarry.com/blog/what-is-a-duty-to-retreat-law/.
[9] Zbur, “Bill Text - AB-1333 Crimes: Homicide.”
[10] Kiszla, Cameron. “Bill Could Redefine Self-defense in California.” KTLA5, March 5, 2025. https://ktla.com/news/local-news/bill-could-redefine-self-defense-in-california/.
[11] “District Map | Official Website - Assembly Democratic Caucus Chair Rick Chavez Zbur Representing California’s 51st Assembly District,” n.d. https://a51.asmdc.org/district-map.
[12] Sangha, Gurajpal. “California’s Self-defense Bill: What to Know.” Abc10.Com, March 7, 2025. https://www.abc10.com/article/news/local/california/californias-self-defense-bill-causes-controversy/103-b162d8f9-376d-40f1-9502-355370d653c1.
[13] Taylor, Lauren, and Zachary Hill. “CA Bill Aims to Limit Self-defense Rights in Homicide Cases, Sparks Controversy.” Straight Arrow News, February 27, 2025. https://san.com/cc/ca-bill-aims-to-limit-self-defense-rights-in-homicide-cases-sparks-controversy/.
[14] Moms Demand Action. “FACT SHEET: AB 1333 Is Life-Saving Legislation Aimed at Preventing Those Who Shoot First and Ask Questions Later,” March 4, 2025. https://momsdemandaction.org/press/fact-sheet-ab-1333-is-life-saving-legislation-aimed-at-preventing-those-who-shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later/#:~:text=be%20redirected%20momentarily.-,FACT%20SHEET%3A%20AB%201333%20is%20Life%2DSaving%20Legislation%20Aimed%20at,First%20and%20Ask%20Questions%20Later&text=SACRAMENTO%2C%20Calif.,the%20state's%20self%2Ddefense%20laws.
[15] Everytown. “FACT SHEET: AB 1333 Is Life-Saving Legislation Aimed at Preventing Those Who Shoot First and Ask Questions Later,” February 28, 2025. https://www.everytown.org/press/fact-sheet-ab-1333-is-life-saving-legislation-aimed-at-preventing-those-who-shoot-first-and-ask-questions-later/#:~:text=AB%201333%20seeks%20to%20make,of%20mind%20to%20California%20communities.
[16] Ibid.
[17] Sangha, “California’s Self-Defense Bill: What to Know.”
[18] Ibid.
[19] West, Christopher. “Riverside County Sheriff and Gubernatorial Candidate Speaks Out Against New Bill.” KRCR, March 3, 2025. https://krcrtv.com/news/local/riverside-county-sheriff-and-gubernatorial-candidate-speaks-out-against-new-bill.
[20] Vallicella, Bill. “John Locke on the Right to Self-Defense.” Maverick Philosopher, March 11, 2018. https://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2018/03/john-locke-on-the-right-to-self-defense.html.
[21] Constitution Annotated, “Fifth Amendment,” Congress.gov, n.d., https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/amendment-5/.
[22] Bozajian, James. “After the Avalanche: Nathan Hochman Becomes the 44th District Attorney of LA County.” Daily Journal, November 6, 2024. https://www.dailyjournal.com/articles/381854-after-the-avalanche-nathan-hochman-becomes-the-44th-district-attorney-of-la-county.
[23] Skelton, George. “Column: Voters Sent Clear Message to Newsom, Democrats: We’re Fed Up - Los Angeles Times.” Los Angeles Times, November 18, 2024. https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-11-18/column-voters-sent-a-clear-message-to-newsom-democrats-were-fed-up.
[24] Tuckness, Alex, "Locke’s Political Philosophy", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Summer 2024 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/sum2024/entries/locke-political/
[25] Laskar, Manzoor, Summary of Social Contract Theory by Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau (April 4, 2013). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2410525 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2410525
[26] National Archives. “The Constitution of the United States,” September 21, 2022. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution#:~:text=We%20the%20People%20of%20the,for%20the%20United%20States%20of.
[27] California Legislative Information. “California Constitution - Article 1: Declaration of Rights,” n.d. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CONS§ionNum=SECTION%201.&article=I.
