There have been quite a few developments in Duncan v. Bonta over the past few weeks after Judge Benitez Ruled California's mag ban was unconstitutional and place an injunction against its enforcement. Now at the 9th circuit we will know what its fate is tomorrow.

-- USCCA - https://www.uscca.com/copperjacket

Social Media

INSTAGRAM - https://www.instagram.com/thedailysho...

Check out my Merch, Shirts, Mugs and More!

https://teespring.com/dashboard/stores

NOTICE: I am "NOT" a lawyer, and this should not be considered legal advice. These are my opinions.

(DISCLAIMER: This post may contain paid advertisements or affiliate links. What is an affiliate link? It means that if you click on one of the product links, Copper Jacket TV will receive a small commission at no extra cost to you. This helps support the channel and allows awesome future content. Thank you for the support!

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 today I've got an update for you in Duncan v. Bonta, which is the case that's challenging California's magazine ban. Now there's been a lot of new developments over the past few weeks and a lot of things to cover, but there is a very important date coming up just tomorrow, so let's talk about what's going on.

Hey, real quick, I want to thank you all very much for watching. I really do appreciate it. We're on the final push here to 500,000 subscribers, and it is really exciting. I've been doing this for almost 11 years now, and to see that 500,000 number creeping so close, it's really something that I'm looking forward to. Hopefully, it'll happen by the end of the year. So if you're not subscribed yet, consider hitting that subscribe button and that little bell notification. It's free, it only takes a second, but it helps me out quite a bit. So with that being said, let's get to the video.

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here. This has got to be one of the strangest, most odd, and unprecedented cases that I have followed since starting this channel nearly 11 years ago. The entire thing started as Duncan V. Baccera down at the Southern District Court of California in front of Judge Roger T Benitez. Now after hearing all of the arguments and the testimony and Discovery, Judge Benitez did find, in fact, that that law is unconstitutional. So he placed an injunction against it, which gave Californians their first Freedom week. Let me tell you, it was an incredible week. There were no restrictions, no capacity bans, nothing like that. People could get whatever they want, and they whipped out their credit cards and emptied their bank accounts to do so. I heard estimates that there were millions that were brought into the state during that one week period. So it was absolutely incredible.

Obviously, the state of California didn't like that very much, so they decided to appeal to the ninth circuit. Now eventually, the ninth circuit did grant a permanent stay against Judge Benitez's injunction. First, it was heard by a three-judge panel, which is the way that it's supposed to happen. Right, three-judge panel heard it. Well, guess what? The three-judge panel also determined that it was unconstitutional. So, California, not liking that, went on to the en banc ninth circuit, which is the entire panel. And them being the activists that they are, in the most overturned court in the country, they decided that, in fact, it is constitutional. They're going to weigh the state's interest against your rights and determined that the state's interests outweigh your rights.

Not liking that very much, Duncan decided, "Hey, we're going to go to the Supreme Court." This goes up to the Supreme Court and it sits there for quite a while. That's all because the Supreme Court was already determining Bruin. So, they were waiting on that decision. After that decision came down, the Supreme Court decided to vacate the ninth circuit's order and remand it back down to them. Now, instead of just kind of rehashing everything out post-Bruin, they being the activists that they are, decided to do a stall tactic. They're going to send it all the way back down to the district court and in front of Judge Benitez to hear it again.

Judge Benitez goes through the whole process using text history and tradition that was already established in Bruin and in Heller. He decided that, again, it's unconstitutional. He used the same test the first time, so it's not going to be any different this time. This time, he placed a stay on his own injunction. So his injunction placed a stay on his injunction. This time it goes back up to the ninth circuit because of an appeal from California. Except this time they skip the three-judge panel again. It has to go to the same three, or typically goes to the same three-judge panel that heard it the first time. That three-judge panel found that it was unconstitutional. So they decide, "Hey, we're just going to skip them. We don't want to go through that process." It goes to the entire, straight from Benitez to the entire en banc panel of the ninth circuit. Why did they do that? Well, obviously, with all of the activist judges that are on that bench, they want to side with the state again. They want to find a way to make sure that they can side with the state and twist the words of Bruin to try and benefit them.

Now with that being said, they placed a stay on that injunction that Benitez gave this time until the 10th of October. Now the ninth circuit en banc panel told the defendants and the plaintiffs in this case that they had to have their brief filed by the 2nd of October so that they could come up with a decision on whether or not to permanently stay this injunction by the 10th. So that means that as of this video at the time I'm filming this video, tomorrow is the date that the ninth circuit has to come up with their decision. That means that they have to show their hand and show their cards by tomorrow. If the ninth circuit just decides that they're just going to be continuing to be the activist court that they are, then they're going to find some way to place a stay tomorrow on Benitez' permanent stay on Benitez' order.

But they're going to have to have some way of backing that up. If they don't, then Judge Benitez's order, the stay on his order is going to expire tomorrow. Well, not Judge Benitez's stay, but the ninth circuit's stay on Judge Benitez's order is going to expire tomorrow. That means that the following day, if the injunction is allowed to stay, people are going to have another Freedom week, and this is going to be allowed to stand. Now do I think that's going to happen? I'm not really sure. I don't think so, okay, just the way that the ninth circuit has been acting lately. I think that they're going to find a way to side with California on this one and say there's just going to be some type of irreparable harm, and they're not going to be able to do it. So they're going to place an in a stay, a permanent stay on that injunction. So that's kind of where I think this is going.

But at least there is a chance that his injunction might be allowed to take effect. So either way, we are going to see where the ninth circuit actually stands post-Bruin, because remember, this is a case that was already in front of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court saw it. They decided that, "Hey, post-Bruin, you might want to take another look at this." And sent it back down to the ninth, who again just played these time-delayed tactics by sending it down to Benitez and going through the whole process all over again. So now they know that the Supreme Court has already pretty much said, "You got it wrong. You got it wrong. You're going to have to take a look at it. You're going to have to take a look at it through the light of text history and tradition and then come up with your decision. So they didn't necessarily tell them, "Hey, you got it wrong, do it over and do it so that you say that California's law is unconstitutional," but they pretty much said, "You need to look at it again because the way that you did it was wrong."

And that could lead to some type of Freedom week, but I don't know if that necessarily will happen or whether the injunction will be allowed to stay till the end of the case altogether. But here's what I do think: I think that the ninth circuit, even if they side with the state of California, which is the most likely outcome here and says that California's law is constitutional and backed up, I still think this is going to end up back in front of the Supreme Court. Since it was already there once and we've had all this indecision, I think that the Supreme Court is going to take it. If they do, I think we're going to see magazines just become free all across the country, and any magazine ban that you see across the country get struck down by this. I think that's the end game here.

I think that maybe even the ninth circuit and maybe even California knows that. So again, I'm not sure if that plays in our favor or not, but tomorrow is a very, very big day. This is the day where we're going to see exactly what the ninth circuit has learned from this being kicked back down to them again. The most overturned court in the entire country or the most overturned appellate court in the entire country. So again, we get to see now what the ninth circuit is willing to change post-Bruin. So pay attention to the news tomorrow because it's either going to be great news (which there's a small chance of) or it's going to be bad news, and we have to move forward. But regardless, tomorrow is a very big day in the state of California that everybody across this country should be paying attention to. So I want to thank you all very much for watching. I really do appreciate it. Please like, subscribe, and you guys have a great day.