California is facing numerous lawsuits attempting to overturn the states gun control laws. One of which is Nguyen v Bonta. This lawsuit challenges the 1 in 30 day purchase restrictions. There is finally significant movement in this case and we have some important dates.

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 have a huge update in the Second Amendment case in the state of California. You know, there are so many cases right now in California that are challenging these unconstitutional laws that sometimes we forget about some, even the big ones. And this is one that hasn't been talked about for quite a while, but it's a big problem in the state of California, and that is the one in 30 law.

There's a lot of people who don't live in the state of California, who probably don't even know about this, but in California, if you want to get yourself a semi-automatic firearm, you can only get one every 30 days. That's clearly unconstitutional. Basically, if you get one on the first, you have to wait 31 days before you can get something else. So there's this 30-day moratorium where you're just basically left without your rights.

Well, there was a lawsuit that was filed pretty much the second that this law took effect, which is back in July of 2021, and we finally have movement in that case. And I think that we're going to be seeing a big win, and we have some major dates to talk about as well. So, this is the case of Nguyen v. Banta, again, a major Second Amendment case, and we're going to be talking about what those dates are, what they mean, and what we can expect out of this because those dates are coming up really soon. So let's talk about it.

This video is proud to be sponsored by American Hartford Gold. Listen, if there is one thing that those of us in the Firearms Community understand, it's that you cannot rely on the government for your protection, not with your life and especially not with your wealth. Look throughout our lifetime, the dominance of the US dollar was unquestioned, but that may be changing as we face unprecedented inflation, the world's biggest economies are ditching the dollar for the Yen, banks are failing left and right, and the government is discussing total control of all of your money with the new digital dollar. Don't let your life savings become a casualty of failing corporations or currency wars.

Now is the time to call the only precious metal dealer that I trust, American Hartford Gold. They'll show you how to protect your savings and retirement accounts by diversifying your wealth portfolio with physical gold and silver. With the finest products, amazing customer service, and a buyback commitment, American Hartford Gold has a five-star rating from thousands of reviews and an A+ from the Better Business Bureau. American Hartford Gold supports content like this that is committed to bringing you the truth. Tell them I sent you, and they'll give you up to five thousand dollars of free silver on your first order. So, call them now, click the link in the description, or call 866-856-2507. That's 866-856-2507 or text COPPER to 65532. Again, that's 866-856-2507 or text COPPER to 65532.

Okay, so let's go and talk about Nguyen v. Banta, again challenging California's unconstitutional one in 30 law. Now, here's the thing, this case, if you take a look at the timeline on this thing, it's been nothing but delay after delay and requests for extension after extension after extension, and not much has really happened until January of 2023 where the current judge who's overseeing this case, Judge William Hayes, denied a motion by the plaintiffs for a summary judgment.

Now, the FPC is also involved in this one as well. They were looking for a summary judgment on this because it's clearly unconstitutional. Now, remember, all of this started before Bruin, so Bruin has happened while this case has already existed. And so, in January 1st, 2023, the judge in this case said no. He denied the motion for a summary judgment. He wasn't going to rule on it. Summary judgment basically says that before we even make it to trial, the judge can see that it's unconstitutional and he's going to call it out for what it is, overturn it as unconstitutional. And again, that judge decided that he was not going to do that.

So he denied that back in January of 2023. And since then, again, since we're still trying to get an injunction, we're still trying to get this overturned, it's been nothing but delay, delay, delay, the entire year so far of 2023. But we finally, after all this time, have some dates to talk about, and these dates are coming up fairly soon. So let's go over those dates real quick because they're going to have significant importance whether or not we're going to see some relief in this unconstitutional law.

Okay, so here's a look at some important dates, and these were just filed, I believe, on the 28th or 29th of August. So these are up-to-date dates, deadlines for pre-trial motions coming up in less than two weeks on September 15th, oppositions October 13th, and then replies to that October 27th. After that is going to be the oral arguments. Now, in oral arguments, we could see a lot happen after that. Obviously, after oral arguments, the judge could decide that he's going to provide injunctive relief or something else that would basically put a stop to California's enforcement of the one in 30-day rule. But that time is set by the judge himself. So it says here, oral arguments will be set by the court at a later date, more than likely, we're going to see that later date be before 2024.

So oral arguments are going to be huge in this one. And obviously, in a post-Bruin world, we could definitely see a win on our side in this fairly soon, whether it comes towards the end of this year or maybe even early next year. We could actually see some relief in this case depending on which side the judge leans on. But he's going to have to look at things through the light of Bruin. And I can tell you right now, if we take a look back in history, I can't think of absolutely anything, and I've done research for years now, looking for stuff. I can't find anything that shows that people were basically withheld their constitutional rights for any period of time, whether it be two days, five days, or in California's case, 30 days. That is an extensive amount of time, and California is going to have to validate that. That's the biggest thing during these oral arguments.

California is going to have to try and validate that through history, through text, history, and tradition. California is going to have to say, "Look, here is an analogous law, something that's comparable to the law that we have today that says that this law should stand." And there's nothing that they have that they're going to be able to find. There is no way to validate California's law that withholds people's constitutional rights for a one-month period for pretty much no reason at all. Obviously, California likes to use public safety, and I'm sure they would like to use the two-step approach on this one, which would balance public safety and government interest against your rights. But with the new Bruin decision being out, they can't do that anymore. So obviously, that's going to go right out the window, and they're going to have to find that historical analog that they can lean on. And it doesn't exist.

So, I mean, with just looking at the bare facts on this one, this case looks like a pretty much slam dunk for us and for the people of California and any other state that thinks they would like to try something similar. So again, that's one of the worst to me, right? You go out, you get something, you spend your hard-earned money, and then you decide, "Oh, you know, the newest latest and greatest thing came out, and I want to get that too." You can't. You just can't under California law. You can't do it. Now, that's not affected by private party transfers, and there's a couple of things. If you have a CNR license and stuff like that, there's ways to get around that. But for the general average public, that's it. You get your one, and now you're... You can't do anything else for 30 days.

It's not talked about enough, but it's one of the worst laws in the state of California. It's one of the worst things that's happened in that state, and I think it needs to have more attention and more light spotlighted on it so that people are focusing more, and maybe there's a little bit of public pressure, and anything will help, obviously, right? And joining these different groups that are spending their time, like the FPC in court where it costs a fortune to take these lawsuits up and try and fight for your rights.

So, if you're not a member, consider becoming a member of your favorite group that's out there. You know, that's the kind of how they run on things. They run off of our goodwill, and so we need to give that to them so that they can help overturn these unconstitutional laws. But FPC is involved in this one, and FPC has been scoring some pretty major victories lately, and I think that this is going to be another one. So, I'm excited to see the outcome. But again, we're going to be seeing a lot of movement here soon. I mean, we're talking less than two weeks before the first date, and then by the time October rolls around, we're going to be seeing some more information come out. We're going to see what California's arguments are, and then we'll see what date the judge sets for oral arguments.

And then those oral arguments are typically something that you can listen to live, and I will try and bring those to you live as well so we can get this whole one in 30-day thing behind us and overturned. But I wanted to let you guys know about that because again, it just hasn't been talked about enough at all since everything's been taking place. So, I just want to thank you all very much for watching. I really do appreciate it. I'm glad to be back, and I want to thank everybody for all the well wishes and prayers again while I was out sick and in the hospital. Thank you guys all very much. If you're not a subscriber yet, consider doing that. I make Second Amendment content every single day. I do news and reviews. So, thank you all very much for watching. Take care.