A Federal District Court Judge in New York has upheld one of the worst new laws in the state. This law which is very similar to one in California was upheld by the Judge who cited a 1756 law on Catholics as a historical analog.

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. So, this is a very important video today because a federal judge has just upheld one of the most unconstitutional and anti-second Amendment laws in the entire state of New York. As a matter of fact, it's nearly identical to an existing law they have in the state of California. It seems like all of the activist judges since Bruin have just wormed their way out of the woodwork and they're really showing their true colors.

So, let's talk about what just happened. Now, real quick before we get started, if you're like me and you believe firmly in defending yourself and your loved ones whether you're in the home or outside the home, you need to do what I did and sign up for attorneys on retainer. I mean, let's face it, not all self-defense incidents are clear-cut. If there's even a small question about whether or not what you did is right, there's a good chance that you're going to end up in handcuffs and taken to jail. You're going to need somebody that's going to be there for you to defend you, and that doesn't come from some pencil pusher in an insurance company. You need attorneys on retainer. If an incident pops up, you call attorneys on retainer. An attorney giving you instant client privilege will pick up the phone, they will guide you through things, they will be there to represent you, and they will take care of you all the way through court. Now, if you're interested in attorneys on retainer, go ahead and check out the link down in the description box. There's also a discount code which is cjtv that'll save you 50 bucks off sign up.

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here. So, a federal judge, Judge Grassy—I'm not sure if I'm pronouncing that correctly, and to be honest with you, I don't care—a judge that would uphold a law like this for the reasons that this judge decided to uphold this law does not deserve my respect or your respect. Regardless, a federal judge in the state of New York has decided to uphold the ammunition background check law in that state, the one that's been such a massive failure, a huge problem with a lot of false positives. Plenty of people have been denied, plenty of people have been delayed. I mean, these people are good law-abiding citizens who have never done anything wrong and they're not able to practice their Second Amendment rights because of that system, which is just an absolute mess, just like it was when it rolled out in the state of California.

Well, you want to know why this judge upheld this law? I got to read this to you because honestly, it's close to unbelievable. It is close to unbelievable, and if you're Catholic, get ready for this one. Okay, so this is directly from the judge's order, and remember, this is post Bruin, and the judge actually did say that ammunition is protected by the Second Amendment. Therefore, they have to look at the nation's history and traditions of firearm regulations in order to find some type of analog that is comparable to today's law in order for it to be legal, in order for it to be upheld. So, the judge writes this:

"The government offers several historical examples of laws that were enacted to disarm dangerous individuals, but the court will discuss only one of the many analogues offered. In colonial Virginia, the legislature dictated that no Catholics shall or may have or keep in his house or elsewhere or in the possession of any other person to his use or at his disposition any arms, weapons, gunpowder, or ammunition because it was determined that it is dangerous at this time to permit Catholics to be armed."

I mean, it's directly from his order. That's the historical analog that he used to uphold New York's law. Okay, so let's go and unpack this absolutely nutty historic analog that the judge is leaning on here. There's so many problems with it, it's incredible that he decided to even use it.

So, first off, again, we're post Bruin. The Supreme Court said that we're supposed to look at this nation's history and traditions of firearm regulation from the ratification of the Second Amendment in 1791, maybe up until the Reconstruction Era of the 1860s. Okay, so that's our timeframe. That's the time period that the lower courts are supposed to look at. This number one is a law from the 1750s. It is well outside of the timeframe that the courts are supposed to look at when considering historical analogues. So, that sort of invalidates this law altogether. But if you want to go a little bit further, we can definitely do that.

Number one, this is also a law that didn't last very long. This is not a longstanding tradition and some type of historical tradition that we can lean on to say that, hey, look, this is something that has existed in our country since the ratification. We can't do that because see, this law didn't even exist for that long. It was a short-lived law that specifically just targeted Catholics and had nothing to do with about them being dangerous and had to do with the religious problems that existed for a hundred years prior to that, that goes all the way back to England. Okay, so this is something that could be traced back to, you know, kings and problems that they had with, you know, their subjects. I mean, we're talking about the colonies preamer here. So, this is not only outside of the purview but it just did not hold up in any way, shape, or form.

Now, you're probably asking yourself if the judge was presented with so many historical analogues, why would he just choose this one which is essentially invalid to begin with? And that's because the other historical analogues provided by the state were even further off than this one. I mean, they were almost not analogous at all, just like this one isn't really. I mean, this one is not analogous to today's law. But what the judge did is he decided to oversimplify things.

And when I say oversimplify, I mean oversimplify to the millionth degree. Basically, what he's saying is this particular law, which was very short standing, banned powder and ammunition and stuff from dangerous people. And so since that was the case, he says, well, you know, dangerous people weren't allowed to have those things, and therefore we should allow New York's background check scheme to stand. I mean, it doesn't make sense to me. It probably doesn't make sense to you. But this guy tried to tie it in a nice little bow. It just doesn't hold up. It doesn't work out. Nevertheless, the judge decided to uphold the law anyway.

And if that historical analogue is the best you have, you are grasping for some serious straws there because it's not even close. This is what has happened post Bruin. If you guys remember when Bruin first came down, there was this big uproar from people saying this is going to change everything. This is—they're illegitimate, the Supreme Court, and what they're doing is tearing down all of our decades of work that we've done in our progress for safety and so forth, right? You remember, everybody was up in arms. You had all the different governors from all the different states that were just absolutely—they could not believe what the Supreme Court had just done. Now, all of a sudden, we have all these judges that are coming out of the waterworks to say, hey, no worries, we can find some type of comparison in history for just about anything. Twist them to make them work for us, and guess what? All of a sudden, all of these things are perfectly fine under Bruin anyway.

I could go on, but essentially what I'm trying to say here is that this is not a judge upholding the rule of law. This is activism, pure and simple. And when you have federal judges who are more concerned with their own personal agenda or the agenda that they're affiliated with rather than the rule of law, this is what happens. And we're going to continue to see this as they twist our nation's history and tradition to meet their agenda. So, I wanted to let you guys know about that. Obviously, there's going to be appeals. This is going to continue to go on. The case in California is going to continue to go on. It'll probably end up at the Supreme Court regardless. The law stands in New York as of today. So, I want to let you guys know about that. I want to thank you all very much for watching. I really do appreciate it. All you Patriots out there are fantastic. You guys have a great day.