Use of Force Laws in California

California is a licensed-carry state. Carrying a concealed firearm (Penal Code 25400) or a loaded firearm in public (Penal Code 25850) requires a CCW license issued by a county sheriff (Penal Code 26150) or city police chief (Penal Code 26155). Holding a license does not change the rules that govern when a person may use force. Any use of force in self-defense is judged under California's homicide and self-defense statutes, the supporting case law, and the standard jury instructions (CALCRIM). A lawful carrier who uses a firearm must be able to justify that use under the same standards that apply to everyone else.

Permissible Use of Lethal Force in Self-Defense

Under California law, a homicide may be justifiable when committed by any person resisting an attempt to murder, to commit a felony, or to do great bodily injury, or in defense of habitation, property, or person against one who manifestly intends or endeavors by violence or surprise to commit a felony (Penal Code 197). The lawful defense of self or of a spouse, parent, child, or other listed person is justifiable when there is reasonable ground to apprehend a design to commit a felony or to do great bodily injury and imminent danger of that design being accomplished (Penal Code 197(3)). In practice, the standard jury instructions reduce this to three elements:

1. Reasonable belief of imminent danger: The person reasonably believed that they, or someone else, was in imminent danger of being killed, suffering great bodily injury, or being the victim of a forcible and atrocious felony;
2. Reasonable belief in necessity: The person reasonably believed that the immediate use of deadly force was necessary to defend against that danger; and
3. Proportional force: The person used no more force than was reasonably necessary to defend against that danger.

The danger must be imminent and cannot rest on a belief in future harm alone. The belief in imminent danger must be reasonable, and the person must have acted because of that belief. A person may use the degree of force, up to lethal force, that a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would believe necessary to prevent the imminent danger (Penal Code 197; Penal Code 198; CALCRIM 505).

"The 'ultimate question' for the jury is whether a reasonable person in defendant's situation 'would believe in the need to kill to prevent imminent harm.'" - People v. Horn (2021) 63 Cal.App.5th 672, 685-686, quoting People v. Humphrey (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1073, 1087.

Key Definitions

• Great bodily injury: A significant or substantial physical injury, not merely a minor or moderate injury. For the home-defense presumption, Penal Code 198.5 defines great bodily injury as "a significant or substantial physical injury."
• Forcible and atrocious crime: A felony that by its nature and the manner of its commission threatens, or is reasonably believed to threaten, life or great bodily injury so as to instill in the person a reasonable fear of death or great bodily injury (People v. Ceballos (1974) 12 Cal.3d 470, 478). Examples include murder, mayhem, rape, and certain robberies.
• Serious bodily injury: A serious impairment of physical condition, including but not limited to loss of consciousness, concussion, bone fracture, protracted loss or impairment of function of any bodily member or organ, a wound requiring extensive suturing, and serious disfigurement (Penal Code 243(f)(4)).
• Deadly force: Force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury. For civilian self-defense the operative authorities are Penal Code 197, 198, 198.5, and 199, together with CALCRIM 505, 506, and 3470. Penal Code 835a defines deadly force and governs use of force by peace officers under AB 392 (2019); it does not control civilian self-defense.
• Imminent threat: Based on the totality of the circumstances, a threat is imminent when a reasonable person in the same situation would believe that another person has the present ability, opportunity, and apparent intent to immediately cause death or great bodily injury. A subjective fear of future harm alone is not enough (Penal Code 198; CALCRIM 505, 3470; People v. Humphrey (1996) 13 Cal.4th 1073).

Limitations on the Use of Force in Self-Defense

• Bare fear is not enough: A bare fear of one of the offenses listed in Penal Code 197 does not justify a homicide. The circumstances must be sufficient to excite the fears of a reasonable person, and the person must have acted under the influence of those fears alone (Penal Code 198).
• Cessation of danger: The right of self-defense ends when the danger ends. Once the attacker has been rendered incapable of inflicting further injury, no further force may be used (CALCRIM 505, 3474).
• Proportionality: A person may use only the amount of force that a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances would believe necessary to prevent the imminent danger.
• Initial aggressor: Self-defense is generally not available to a person who starts a fight. If that person tries in good faith to stop the fight and clearly tells the opponent they want peace, but the opponent keeps fighting, the right of self-defense returns (Penal Code 197(3); CALCRIM 3471).
• Excessive force: Force beyond these limits can result in civil or criminal liability, even if the encounter began as lawful self-defense.

No Duty to Retreat

California has no statutory stand-your-ground law, but California courts and the standard jury instructions provide a no-duty-to-retreat rule for lawful defenders. A person who is not the aggressor is not required to retreat, even if a safe retreat is possible, and may stand their ground and defend themselves. This rule is stated in the standard self-defense jury instructions, CALCRIM 505 and 3470, which tell the jury that a defendant who is lawfully defending themselves is not required to retreat and may pursue an assailant until the danger has passed. Penal Code 835a(d) creates a separate no-retreat rule for peace officers and does not govern civilians. The force used must still be reasonable and proportional to the threat.

Castle Doctrine: Defending Yourself or Another in the Home (Penal Code 198.5)

A person who uses force intended or likely to cause death or great bodily injury inside their residence is presumed to have held a reasonable fear of imminent peril of death or great bodily injury to self, family, or a member of the household when:

1. The force is used against a person who is not a member of the family or household; and
2. That person unlawfully and forcibly entered, or had unlawfully and forcibly entered, the residence; and
3. The person using force knew or had reason to believe that an unlawful and forcible entry occurred.

This is a rebuttable presumption of reasonable fear (Penal Code 198.5). It does not give blanket authority to use deadly force in the home. The presumption can be challenged by the prosecution, and the force used must still appear necessary to a reasonable person in the same or similar circumstances. The presumption applies only to a residence and only against a person who forcibly and unlawfully enters; it does not extend to family or household members.

Defense of Property

The lawful occupant of real property may ask a trespasser to leave. If the trespasser does not leave within a reasonable time, the occupant may use reasonable force to eject them, limited to the force a reasonable person would believe necessary under the same or similar circumstances (CALCRIM 3475).

Note: Defense of property alone does not justify lethal force. Lethal force is justified only when there is a reasonable belief of imminent danger of death or great bodily injury to a person.

Peace-Officer Use-of-Force Standard (Penal Code 835a)

Penal Code 835a, enacted by AB 392 (2019), sets the standard for use of force by peace officers. It is not the civilian self-defense standard, but it reflects principles that often appear in use-of-force analysis:

• Force is judged on the totality of the circumstances, meaning all facts known to the person at the time, including the conduct of both parties leading up to the use of force.
• The reasonableness of force is judged from the perspective of a reasonable person in the same situation, not with hindsight.
• Deadly force is justified only when reasonably necessary to defend against an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury.

Civilians should not assume the officer standard applies to them. Civilian use of force is governed by Penal Code 197, 198, 198.5, and 199 and the CALCRIM instructions.

Self-Defense and Workplace Violence Rules

California's workplace violence prevention law (Labor Code 6401.9) expressly states that "workplace violence" does not include lawful acts of self-defense or defense of others. A lawful defensive act by an employee is not a reportable workplace violence incident under that statute.

Key Statutory References

Key Case Law

Important Considerations for Concealed Carry Permit Holders

• Whether the use of lethal force is justified cannot be reduced to a simple checklist. It depends on statutory law (Penal Code 197, 198, 198.5, 199), case law, and the totality of the circumstances as a jury would view them.
• California imposes no duty to retreat for a lawful defender, but the force used must always be reasonable and proportional to the perceived threat.
• The use of excessive force, even when an encounter began as lawful self-defense, can result in both civil and criminal liability.
• A CCW license authorizes lawful carry. It does not lower the legal threshold for using force, and it does not provide immunity from prosecution if force is later found to be unjustified.

<!-- federal-context-block:added-2026-05-20 -->

Federal context

N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen (2022) and United States v. Rahimi (2024). Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), established the historical-tradition test for Second Amendment claims and recognized a right to carry a handgun in public for self-defense. Rahimi, 602 U.S. 680 (2024), applied Bruen to uphold the federal firearm prohibition for persons subject to a domestic-violence restraining order at 18 U.S.C. 922(g)(8), confirming that not every firearm disability fails Bruen's test. Anyone advising on use of force or firearm-disability questions should be familiar with both decisions.