The lawsuit challenging Californias Ban on LCM's aka "Standard Cap" magazines just hit a setback at the 9th Circuit with nearly two dozen states writing a brief in support of the states ban. The case in question is "Duncan v. Bonta" also "Duncan v. Becerra"
Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. So you guys are not going to believe this one; you're definitely going to want to stick around for this. Today, we're talking about a setback in Duncan v. Bont, which is a case challenging California's ban on magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds, commonly known as LCMs (large-capacity magazines). This case has already been found unconstitutional twice at the district court level in front of Judge Roger Bedz, and now, for the second time, it sits in front of the Circuit Court of Appeals.
Well, it turns out that we have 20 states out there, 19 states plus the District of Columbia, that have written a brief to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. They are telling them that these LCMs are not protected by the Constitution, and the Ninth Circuit should uphold California's ban. The states that wrote this letter might actually surprise you. One of the states that wrote to the Ninth Circuit, saying that this ban is okay and not protected by the Constitution, is Arizona. Let's go ahead and talk about the rest and what they said because their argument is unbelievable. But I can almost guarantee you that the Ninth Circuit is going to pay attention to it.
Hey, real quick before we get this video started, I just want to say thank you to everybody for watching. I really do appreciate all the support. We are on our final push to 500,000; we're getting really close. So if you're watching this and you're not subscribed yet, it's free, it only takes a second. Hit that subscribe button, share this with your friends because people need to know what's going on out there, and a like button is always appreciated. So with that being said, let's talk about what's going on here.
Okay, so let's go ahead and talk about what's going on here with Duncan v. Bont. Like I said in the beginning, 19 states plus the District of Columbia have written a brief to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, telling them that they need to uphold the ban on those LCMs. They said that they need to uphold the ban for several different reasons, and we'll get into those reasons. But let me go ahead and first tell you what these states are, the names of these states that wrote this brief, and again, some of them might surprise you.
Here's a list of states that submitted the brief: Massachusetts, New Jersey, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, DC, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. In support of appellant and reversal, and what they're talking about is the reversal of Judge Bedz's injunction against this law.
Now you might notice there on that list, there are several states that do not have capacity bans in them currently. So if you heard that state, you know somebody who lives in that state, or you want to share this video so that people know about this, these are states who are calling for California to keep their ban. So I would be a little bit nervous and expect that a ban might be coming to some of these states fairly soon.
But what are they using to justify this brief? What are they saying that allows California to keep this ban? Well, let's read the table of contents real quick, and it'll tell us a little bit of something here.
They're writing this to promote our resident safety and well-being. States impose a range of restrictions, including prohibitions on dangerous accessories and weapons not commonly used for self-defense. Now, that's one part that you're going to hear a lot - not commonly used for self-defense. They added that last part, commonly used for self-defense. That is not what was said by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court says that if they are in common use for lawful purposes, then they are protected by the Second Amendment. It doesn't have to do anything with self-defense. Just they have to be in common use for lawful purposes. But now they've added that, and they're trying to sell that as, you know, real to California's restrictions on magazine capacity comports with the Second Amendment.
The Second Amendment does not protect large-capacity magazines. Large-capacity magazines are not arms. So they're saying it right there - they're not protected because they are not arms, which we all know to be completely false. LCMs are not commonly used for self-defense. Again, there's another thing - they don't have to be commonly used for self-defense. They just have to be in common use for lawful purposes.
And then we have B: California's magazine capacity restrictions are analogous to the historical practices of regulating the storage of ammunition, imposing restrictions on new and distinctly dangerous forms of weaponry. Well, none of that has any relevance to storage versus banning a capacity. So I don't see how that's a historical analog whatsoever. This court should consider the full sweep of our nation's historical tradition of regulating arms. So basically, what they're saying here is that we somehow have a history of violating people's Second Amendment rights, and the court should consider that, which really isn't the case. We didn't really have any major regulations that hit until maybe the early 20th century. California's laws comport with our historical tradition, which again is just completely untrue.
So it says here in their interest of why they are submitting this brief to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It says that all of the above-named states have compelling governmental interests in public safety and crime prevention. In furtherance of these interests and pursuant to Rule 29A2, we submit this brief to explain why California's limitation on the size of ammunition magazines that may be purchased and possessed within its borders is wholly consistent with the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.
Now, it continues on with a list of cases that are supposed to support their argument, but it says here in the summary of the argument: The Second Amendment is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. And then they cite the NYRPA Bruan case, recognizing that "reasonable firearms regulations can coexist comfortably with the Second Amendment." And then they quote McDonald, saying the states have adopted a variety of restrictions on weapons and accessories that are not in common use for self-defense. Again, they just threw that in there. Remember that. Try and keep that in mind. That is completely made up. That is not what the actual quote is.
This case concerns one such law. California prohibits the possession and sale of ammunition magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition, referred to as LCMs. And then it gives the penal code like similar laws around the country imposing restrictions on certain types of accessories, ammunition, and weapons themselves.
Misapplying the framework set forth in Bruan, the district court concluded that the plaintiff's appellees' Second Amendment challenge to this law is likely to succeed on the merits. Duncan v. Bont, the conclusion should be reversed. LCMs are not arms under the Second Amendment's plain text because they are neither commonly used nor used for self-defense. A historical understanding of the term arms did not encompass container accessories such as LCMs. Moreover, California's law is consistent with the nation's historical tradition of firearms regulation. Again, it quotes Bruan.
So keep in mind that all of those states that are on this list agree with what is in this letter, which states that they are not protected by the Second Amendment. They are not even considered arms, which we all know that they are just based on pure definition alone. So they're saying that they're not protected. Again, keep an eye on that list. If you see a state there that does not have a restriction as of yet, they don't believe that you have a right to them. So they believe that they can pretty much just take them away as they want because, well, they're not even considered arms.
So again, anybody that lives in the state might want to perk up your ears a little bit and check into this because, again, that's what your state, at least the government officials in your state, believe. And so that should be something that should be alarming to anybody like in the state of Arizona and others. To me, that's just kind of... it's very, very worrisome. Nonetheless, this is a big setback for Duncan. The reason is that the Ninth Circuit is looking to lean on anything that they can in order to strike down Bont's injunction and say that it is constitutional and that it should be upheld. They're looking for any excuse that they can have because we know from just past decisions from the Ninth Circuit that it's more about agenda and less about the rule of law and the Constitution. As long as they can find a way to somehow, even if it doesn't really make sense, validate their agenda, then they will do that.
Now guaranteed, if that happens, this is going to be going up to the Supreme Court, and the Supreme Court's going to have to hear this. These types of things are in other circuit courts across the country. And with differing opinions between district courts, appellate courts, and stuff like that post-Bruan, you can almost be guaranteed that the Supreme Court is going to take this up. And since they are in common use for lawful purposes, I think that we would get a win out of this out of the Supreme Court. So these states right here that feel like they might be helping California try and uphold their ban, it might end up working against them. Because yes, while it might delay it for a while till it does get up to the Supreme Court, in the end, if the Supreme Court rules on it, guess what? That would affect the entire country altogether. So it would basically nullify any ban in any state all across this country, just like what happened in Bruan with good cause or just cause. While it was a New York case, that decision in Bruan had a ripple effect across the entire country.
So they could be just, you know, they could be doing more harm than good by this. Nonetheless, this is what the Ninth Circuit needed to help them make their decision. So you can almost guarantee now what the Ninth Circuit is going to do with Duncan. And I wanted to make you guys aware of it because, again, it's unnerving that you have these states right, like California, which already has the most laws on the books in this area than any other state in the entire country. Yet, other states that don't have those same laws, a lot of them on that list are almost as bad as California, but not all of them. But they still feel like they need to tell California what laws they should uphold against the rights of their own citizens. So it is just absolutely out of control what's happening. I think what's happened is we've kind of backed the dog into a corner right now with Bruan. They know that they're losing; they know that things are being overturned. They know that they're not on the winning foot here; they're not on the winning side. And so while they're backed up, they're just getting a little bit frothy at the mouth. And this is what you get out of that. And again, I wanted to share that with you. So we'll see what happens. We're not going to know anything until next year. But we'll be paying close attention to Duncan, Miller, and any other case that is important across this country. Thank you all very much for watching; I really do appreciate it. Please like, subscribe. You guys have a great day.