DO NOT try anything you see in this video at home. All work should be performed by a trained professional. Disclaimer: These videos are strictly for educational and entertainment purposes only. Imitation or the use of anything demonstrated in my videos is done AT YOUR OWN RISK.. These videos are free to watch and if anyone attempts to charge for this video notify us immediately.

"Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. So it's fairly evident that the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has absolutely no respect for at least one of your rights. They made that perfectly clear yesterday when the en banc panel decided that they were going to stay Judge Benitez’s second order in Duncan V Bonta. Judge Benitez placed an injunction against California's enforcement of what they consider to be so-called high-capacity magazines, a completely arbitrary number of 10 was chosen. Nobody knows who chose it, but for some reason, that seems to be the number that everybody has settled on. Anything more than that is bad and not good to go. So you see that number across the country a lot.

But what's surprising here is how far the ninth circuit will actually go to support California and its infringements on your second amendment rights. There was a new document that was just released today, and this new document gives us some insight as to what the ninth circuit is planning on doing here, and I got to tell you it's nothing good. It's nothing good. So stay tuned, let's talk about it.

Hey, real quick, I want to thank you all very much for watching. I really do appreciate it. I am on my final push to 500,000 subscribers, half a million subscribers. I honestly never thought that I would ever say that. When I had 10 subscribers, I was extremely excited and thrilled and happy to be doing what I was doing. At the time, there wasn't really anybody talking about California laws or anything like that, to be honest with you. So I tried to push myself out there to let people know what was going on, and we've been growing, and now we're really, really close to hitting that 500,000 mark. So if you are not subscribed and you're watching this video, it would mean the world to me if you would hit that subscribe button. It's free, it only takes a second, but it gets us just that little bit closer to that 500,000 mark.

Okay, let's go and talk about what's going on here, and this one is absolutely going to make your head spin. But it also shows us exactly what the ninth circuit is up to here. The ninth circuit, after yesterday where they stayed Judge Benitez's order, decided that they were going to ask the parties, the plaintiffs, and the defendants for briefs in this case. Not really that big of a deal, right? You've got to submit a brief to the ninth circuit. But one of the questions that they asked to be submitted in their brief was whether or not the en banc panel should even have heard this in the first place. Maybe it should have gone to the three-judge panel. So they want the plaintiffs and the defendants in this case to actually submit a brief and state whether or not the complete en banc panel should even have heard it. It's unbelievably mind-numbing.

Let me go ahead and read this to you just real quick, and then I'll explain what that means for this case. Okay, so it says here, the parties shall adhere to the time schedule order issued on September 25, 2023. In addition to addressing the merits, which is the only thing that they should really be doing here, the parties shall address whether the en banc panel that heard the determined appeal has statutory authority under 28 USC 46C to decide this appeal, including when a case or controversy in the court of appeals may be heard and determined or reheard and redetermined by the en banc court rather than by the three-judge panel and when senior judges may participate in an en banc decision.

So what the ninth circuit is actually doing here, and this is stunning, is they are telling the plaintiffs, "Can you please tell us whether or not we did our job right? And if you don't think we did our job right, can you tell us why?" That's what that says. They don't know if what they did in determining that appeal for a stay was even the correct process. They don't even know. So they're asking the parties whether or not they think they did their job right.

Now, that might seem kind of confusing to some people, but I have a theory, and others also have a theory as to why they're doing this. It's all part of the delay tactic. So it went up to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court said, "Hey, we're going to reverse and remand this back down to you." Well, in order to delay as long as possible, instead of just rehearing it with the three-judge panel or en banc, they sent it all the way back down to Judge Benitez.

Pay attention here, Judge Benitez had to go through all the discovery, testimony, arguments, and everything else and come up with a completely new order. 72 pages. Then that goes back up to the ninth circuit. The ninth circuit decides to skip the three-judge panel. They decide to hear it themselves. Now, in issuing their stay, they only issued a six-page order, just a quick six-page order, and it was a really interesting balancing approach that they used to get there because they didn't have their arguments all squared away.

So now, by asking the plaintiffs and the defendants to figure out whether or not what they did was right, what they could do now is they can actually redetermine it down to the three-judge panel. So now, instead of the ninth circuit just hearing this case on appeal, they're going to send it back down to the three-judge panel for the three-judge panel to take another look at this. More briefs, more discovery, more testimony, more everything. And so after that, let's say that the three-judge panel says, "Yeah, we find, like Judge Benitez, that it's unconstitutional." Now, it can go back up to the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals again for even further arguments, testimony, and everything else that you need to do there. So basically what they're doing here is they're opening up a pathway to send it back to the three-judge panel to be done again before it goes back again to the ninth circuit and then, who knows, even potentially up to the Supreme Court.

So if the Supreme Court actually gets this, if it ends up there, I think that they're going to completely side with the Second Amendment on this one. The ninth circuit is just absolutely out of control with the way that they've been operating lately. Not even following their own procedures. And then when they don't follow their procedures, asking others if they did the right thing or not. It's stunning. So anyway, I wanted to share that with you because, again, when it comes to the ninth circuit, nothing really shocks me anymore. But I found this actually pretty surprising because I think once SCOTUS actually gets this, if it ends up there, I think that they're going to completely side with the Second Amendment on this one. The ninth circuit is just absolutely out of control with the way that they've been operating lately, not even following their own procedures and then when they don't follow their procedures, asking others if they did the right thing or not. It's stunning.

So anyway, I wanted to share that with you. It's a big old delay tactic. That's what we're watching right now, and I want to thank you all very much for watching. You guys have a great day.