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 some great news for you. I mean, this is unprecedented. For the third time in a row, post Bruin, the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, who has not been traditionally friendly to the second or first amendment, has decided to side with the Constitution, and we got a big win out of it. So we're going to be talking about that win today, what it means for California, and how the tides are changing. Let's talk about it.

Hey, real quick, I just want to mention that more than half the people that watch these videos are not actually subscribed. If you like Second Amendment content and you want to know what's going on around you, hit that little subscribe button. It's free, but it helps me out quite a bit, and sometimes people aren't seeing the videos they want to see in their thread, so make sure you hit that little alarm bell. That'll let you know when new content comes out. I put Second Amendment content out pretty much daily, so again, make sure you subscribe. A like would be appreciated, and hit that little bell notification. Let's get to it.

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here. So we're talking about Junior Sports magazine Inc v. Banta. This is an extremely important case because of what California was trying to do here, and I think that everybody needs to pay attention to this one. So Junior Sports magazine Inc is challenging California's law that basically banned advertising and product placement and anything related to the Second Amendment to youth. So basically, it was just taking an entire generation and wiping that right away from them. Now, it wasn't necessarily taking the right away from them, but it wasn't allowing them to see that right, to know that that right existed.

And so what they were trying to do is they were trying to create this generational gap where people wouldn't have information growing up. They wouldn't know what their rights were. They wouldn't know what anything was all about. And so once, you know, people started to age out and these younger people started to become adults, you would have basically a dumbed-down generation that wouldn't understand what their rights were all about because, again, they couldn't know anything about it.

Now, obviously, that's a very big deal. We could see exactly what California was trying to do with this, and the ninth circuit apparently did too. The ninth circuit actually saw completely through what California was trying to do and had some incredible things to say about it. So let me go ahead and read you guys one of the incredible things that they had to say about this, and it'll show you exactly where the ninth circuit mindset was on this, and I find it absolutely fantastic. Again, like I said in the last ninth circuit video that I made, you don't typically see language like this from the ninth circuit, so check this out.

Now, what you're looking at right here is part of a paragraph from a judge that agreed with the majority in the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that basically overturned The District Court's opinion that there should not be an injunction in this case. I write separately to emphasize that laws like AB2751, which attempt to use the coercive power of the state to eliminate a viewpoint from public discourse, deserve strict scrutiny. Our court's precedent is ambiguous about whether viewpoint discriminatory laws that regulate commercial speech are subject to strict scrutiny. In the appropriate case, we should make clear that they are.

But that's not it, check out this part. In the end, California spins a web of speculation, not facts or evidence, to claim that restrictions on speech will significantly curb unlawful firearm use and gun violence among minors. The First Amendment cannot be so easily trampled through inference and innuendo. We thus conclude that California has not justified its intrusion into protected speech. To hold otherwise would require us to engage in the sort of speculation or conjecture that is an unacceptable means of demonstrating that a restriction on commercial speech directly advances the state's asserted interest.

So here's what happened at the district court level. Junior Sports magazine was looking for an injunction to halt enforcement of this new law. Now, the judge took a look at all the findings and all the evidence and decided not to grant the injunction, basically stating that she didn't believe they had a good likelihood of success on the merits. So Junior Sports magazine decided that they were going to take it up to the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and they were going to appeal that judge's decision. And that is what came out of the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The ninth circuit basically told that district court judge not only did you get it wrong, but you got it very, very wrong. So we are going to reverse your decision, and we are going to send it back down to you with instructions that Junior Sports magazine actually does have a very good chance, a very good likelihood of success on the merits, and we want you to grant that injunction. That's what was basically said to the district court judge. So again, it was reversed and remanded back down to the district court, and it looks like just because of the ninth circuit's opinion on this going down to that judge, we are going to be seeing an injunction granted against the state. So this is again fantastic.

So this is obviously a First Amendment case, but it affects a lot more than just the First Amendment, obviously. I mean, we can all see what the implication here is and what California was trying to do here, and just like that judge said, you know, you're trying to coerce the public and trying to reduce or restrict First Amendment free speech in order to affect discourse and what people have knowledge of is what California is trying to do. They're trying to take an entire generation and make them less knowledgeable about one of their rights, and everybody can see through that.

But that's what they're trying to do, and we see now with New Mexico and other states how far they're willing to go. So don't think that other states wouldn't try and do this as well. So if we get an injunction and we eventually get a win in this case, like even the ninth circuit says that they see that there's a likelihood of success on the merits, then we're going to have precedent should any other state try and do that as well under some other um uh some other court. Again, this is a very big First Amendment case, a very big deal, and it affects quite a bit. So we're going to stay on top of it, and if and when this judge actually does grant the injunction, I'll let you guys know about it. But I think we're going to see in the end here a complete win. But in the meantime, I don't think California is going to be able to enforce it after this. So we'll see what happens, and I will keep you guys up to date. Thank you all very much for watching. I really do appreciate it. Please like, subscribe. You guys have a great day.