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 Roadie v. Banta, previously Roadie v. Becerra. This is the case that challenges California's ammunition restrictions like background checks. Let's go and talk about what's going on.

Now, real quick, I just want to thank you all very much for watching. I really do appreciate it. If you haven't done so already, hit that subscribe button and that little bell notification to let you know when new videos come out. Leave a comment, that's where all the good conversation is happening. Also, check out the main sponsor of this channel, which is the USCCA. With your USCCA membership, you get things like self-defense liability insurance, which is absolutely priceless because most of us don't have enough money to hire or retain an attorney should we find ourselves in some type of self-defense situation. So, you definitely want to do that. Check out that link down below. Let's get to the video.

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here. Now, if you follow my channel, you know that we talk about this one quite a bit because I feel like this one could have an impact across the country, win or lose. If we were to lose in this case, I think you're going to see a lot of other states start to implement something similar. If we win, however, it could overturn some other laws in other states or at least help, and it could also prevent other states from implementing something like this. And it's also just an absolute infringement on everybody's Second Amendment rights in that state.

Because what we have here with California's background check system is a completely wrecked system that gives a lot of false positives. That means when people go into a shop, they want to acquire some ammunition, they're not able to do so because for some reason the system kicks it back, saying that they are disqualified. And so, they have to walk out with nothing. And that basically means that all they're left with is a big heavy metal or plastic paperweight. So again, that completely infringes on people's Second Amendment rights.

You might remember that this case had a very big hearing back on July 17th, 2023, so just recently, less than a month ago, as a matter of fact. Now, during that hearing, Judge Benitez was talking to different council and California said, "You know what? We want an extra 30 days. We want 30 extra days to come up with some type of historical analog that we could present to you that shows you that our background checks on ammunition should be allowed to stand."

Now, Benitez, who's heard pretty much every case California has had to offer when it comes to the Second Amendment, he seemed like he was doubtful that they could come up with any more evidence, or at least any more evidence that he's already seen. There has to be some type of at least similar or mostly similar historical analog that can show that a law like this has been around since, you know, 1791 to the Reconstruction Era. And so, while Benitez was hesitant, he still gave them that 30 days. Now, that 30 days is just about up. As a matter of fact, we are exactly one week from that 30 days being up as of today.

Now, there's also something else that I want to talk to you guys about. So, this is a case by the CRPA. If you're not involved with the CRPA, please do so. Great organization. But the CRPA needs help because one of the problems that we're facing in this case is that the state is arguing that the CRPA doesn't have standing to bring this lawsuit forward because its members haven't suffered any of the effects that they are fighting against in the case. Meaning that, you know, there's no false positives or anything like that that they can prove. And that's absolutely, I mean, obviously there's tons of people who are affected by this in the state of California, and mostly are going to be CRPA members, regardless.

They need testimonials, they need information, and they need people to bring their experiences to them. So, I'm going to put a link down below to a page to the CRPA where you can go and if you've had a false positive or you've been denied for some reason that shouldn't be right, if something happened and you were forced to walk out with nothing, the CRPA wants to hear your story so that they can then present that to Benitez or, you know, to the court and show that yes, their members and people within California have experienced these things. If you're with the CRPA and you have an experience that you think would be helpful in this case, go over there and let them know what your experience is.

Now, Benitez has a pretty full plate. He's got Roadie, he's got Duncan, he's got Miller, and we've been waiting on Duncan and Miller since March 15th, and we still haven't heard anything about those. Now, I don't know if Roadie is going to be something that could be a little bit quicker than the other ones or whether or not he's going to wait for a decision in the other ones before he makes a decision in this one. I don't know exactly what the time frame is here, but it is still, even though a small possibility, a possibility that he could rule from the bench. So, we'll see what happens. He can provide an injunction, he could, there's several different things that he could do, but we just don't know exactly when he will do it.

So, after the evidence is given to him and he takes a look at the historical analogs and decides whether or not they're relevant to the case in any way, then he's going to go ahead and he'll probably go back and just kind of look things over and then decide how he's going to write his order. Because he knows, just like we all know, that it's going to get appealed and it's going to be appealed to the Ninth Circuit. And then, you know, that'll be a three-judge panel. Whether or not they want to appeal that to the full Circuit Court, who knows? But these things do take quite a bit of time.

But if he was to provide an injunction and then that appeal wasn't or that injunction wasn't stayed upon appeal from California, then we could see the background checks go away, actually fairly soon in this case. So, it just depends what Benitez decides to do. Regardless, this is one to pay attention to because, in my opinion, this completely strips people of their rights. It does, because again, they have to leave with nothing. And if you don't have anything to feed your tool, then you don't have anything at all. You can just throw it at somebody, that's pretty much all you're left with. So again, this does completely infringe on people's Second Amendment rights, and I think it needs to be stopped and overturned right now, immediately. So if you guys agree, hit that thumbs-up button, hit that little subscribe button if you have an extra second, and thank you all very much for watching.