-- 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 something that's just going to blow your mind. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals actually voted in favor of the Second Amendment. I can't remember in my lifetime when that has ever happened, so this is a pretty big deal. Not only that, they followed the structure created under Bruin and used text, history, and tradition to get there. So, we're going to talk about this and its massive effect on California's assault weapons ban, their mag bans, and just about everything else they've been implementing in that state. This is extremely exciting. Let's get into it.

This video is proud to be sponsored by the one and only apparel company that you need to visit today: Battle CAT Company. Battlecat company actually has a big selection of t-shirt designs in multiple colors. They also have hoodies, hats, accessories, stickers, and even a podcast. So, Battle Cat Co. has all your apparel needs covered, including the shirt I'm wearing here today. Check out the link down below to Battle Cat, and thanks once again for sponsoring today's video.

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here because this is very exciting. As I'm sure most of you know, we have some pretty big Second Amendment cases currently sitting before district court judges in the state of California. These cases challenge pretty much every piece of gun control that California has put out over the past several decades - like 10-day waiting periods, the roster, background checks, mag bans, so-called assault weapons bans; you name it, it's being challenged. And it looks like we have a very good chance of winning these cases, and it could have a ripple effect across the entire country.

But the big question has been, is the Ninth Circuit going to use the direction that was given to them by the Supreme Court in Bruin? Are they going to apply that to Second Amendment cases moving forward? Because the Ninth Circuit always sides with the state. I mean, in my lifetime, I don't think up until now I've seen the Ninth Circuit ever side in favor of the Second Amendment over the state. So, that's how big this is. And that big question has been answered basically here.

So what we have is a case called Teter V Lopez, which is a case out of Hawaii, covered by the Ninth Circuit. And that case has to do with butterfly knives - something very simple, right? Well, it turns out that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals actually did use Bruin in making their decision. So, the Ninth Circuit used text, history, and tradition when they came up with their order. Now, that's a big deal because we were wondering since it does look like we are going to win these cases, how is the Ninth Circuit going to view things post-Bruin? Well, it looks like they're viewing them under the light of Bruin and that text, history, and tradition standard. So, this is kind of like a leak, right? We're gaining insight into how the Ninth Circuit is going to be looking at Second Amendment cases, all because of a butterfly knife case out of Hawaii, again Teter V Lopez.

Let me go ahead and read you something real quick, just a quick summary of the case. And that'll give you some idea as to how things worked out here and why this is going to be so big. Because, again, we are waiting on Judge Benitez for Duncan and Miller, two of the biggest cases in that state. And we've been wondering why he's waiting so long. He's had these cases since March 15th. Well, he might have been waiting for this, and we might be seeing a decision now from Benitez in those two cases. So this, again, could crack everything wide open, and we could be seeing some major changes coming to the state of California very soon.

So, again, let me read you this quick summary because it's definitely something you're going to want to see. Okay, here's a quick summary of what happened. It says here, "Reversing the district court's summary judgment in favor of Hawaii officials and remanding, the panel held that Hawaii's ban on butterfly knives violates the Second Amendment as incorporated against Hawaii through the 14th Amendment. The panel determined that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge because they allege the Second Amendment provides them with a legally protected interest to purchase butterfly knives. And but for Section 134-53 subsection (a), they would do so within Hawaii. Plaintiffs further articulated a concrete plan to violate the law, and Hawaii's history of prosecution under its butterfly ban was good evidence of credible threat of enforcement."

"The panel denied Hawaii's requests to remand this case for further factual or historical development in light of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruin, determining that further development of adjudicative facts was unnecessary. The panel held that the possession of butterfly knives is conduct covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment. Bladed weapons facially constitute arms within the meaning of the Second Amendment, and contemporaneous sources confirmed that at the time of the adoption of the Second Amendment, the term 'arms' was understood as generally extending to bladed weapons and, by necessity, butterfly knives."

"The Constitution therefore presumptively guarantees keeping and bearing such instruments for self-defense. The panel held that Hawaii failed to prove that Section 134-53(a) was consistent with the nation's historical traditions of regulating weapons. The majority of the historical statutes cited by Hawaii did not ban the possession of knives but rather regulated how they were carried and concerned knives that were distinct from butterfly knives, which are more analogous to ordinary pocket knives. Hawaii cited no analogs in which Congress or any state legislature imposed an outright ban on the possession of pocket knives, closest in time to the Second Amendment's adoption in 1791 and the 14th Amendment's adoption in 1868."

Now, let me explain to you why what I just read to you is so important. Because in the past, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals always liked to use the two-step approach, right? Where they balance the state's interest over the law that infringed on your rights. And if the state had a good interest in, let's say, public safety, which was always what they used, then the courts would simply uphold the law for the state of California, even though it was still an infringement. They kind of balanced everything, right? Well, the Supreme Court said you can't balance anything anymore. You have to look at it from a textual standpoint. You know, from the text of the Second Amendment itself, does it violate the Second Amendment? And then you have to look at text, history, and tradition to see if there's some type of historical analog, some type of similar law that existed back in the day that allows you to have this law still today, right? The law couldn't have just been created and then overturned. It has to be a law that has stood the test of time from the creation of the Second Amendment in 1791, the ratification all the way to the Reconstruction Era in 1868. Right? So, the 14th Amendment. That's part of why this plays in. Regardless, the court didn't do that this time. They looked at it from a pure textual and historical standpoint, which is extremely odd for the Ninth Circuit. You do not see that. You always see the two-step approach from the Ninth Circuit and not the Bruin test, which is text, history, and tradition. But that's what they used here in determining this. That means that when Miller and Duncan and all of these other cases go up there, they're actually going to have this to use as some type of analog for themselves to say that these laws shouldn't be allowed to stand either. And so what we have here is almost like a preview of an analysis from the court. So, it looks like the court actually is using Bruin, and if they continue to use Bruin, we'll definitely cite in our favor. And Hawaii got smacked down by that three-judge panel who said, "Look, you can't do this. You didn't provide enough historical analogs." As a matter of fact, in that summary, it even states that the state itself asked for more time for discovery. So the state could go back and the state could look for some type of better historical analog to try and, you know, hold up their claims. But the Ninth Circuit actually said, "No, we're not going to allow you that time to go back and look in history because it doesn't really matter if there is any historical tradition." And why is that? Because it already violates the plain text of the Second Amendment. So that was in that summary. If you guys want to go back and listen to it, you can hear where they say it violated the plain text of the Second Amendment. There's no need to go any further into discovery because once it violates the text, that's the end of the test right there. That's it. It violates it. It's gone. And so you have to go back to 1791 and take a look at what arms were defined as back then, which were defined as anything that was bearable in your own defense or something that could be worn for your own defense. And there were several different definitions, but they're all somewhere around there.

So again, this is a very big deal. We have very big cases that are going to be up to the Ninth Circuit, I think, extremely soon here. And now we finally have a glimpse into the way that they're going to be running the show moving forward. So fingers crossed on this one. I'm extremely hopeful that the people of California might actually be seeing some freedom and some liberty in that state again very soon. So I wanted to share that with you, and I want to thank you all very much for watching. I really do appreciate it. Please like, subscribe. You guys have a great day.