The case of Rhode v Bonta out of the State of California has made its way back and forth from the District court to the Circuit Court multiple times. Currently the Injunction provided by Judge Benitez is stayed by the motions panel of the 9th. That stay and the way it was handed down is causing lots of confusion and questions.
Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. So today, we're going to be talking again about Ro VB, and that's because ever since the ninth circuit motions panel stayed the injunction by Judge Bonitz, there have been a lot of questions. There's a lot of confusion, a lot of unresolved issues, and that's because the stay was somewhat vague. It didn't answer a lot of questions, and now it's got people wondering if what they're doing is even legal and what's going on with their orders. Again, there's a lot to cover here, so we're going to try and cover at least a majority of it today, so stay tuned.
Now, before we get started, these videos are not making it out to everybody who should see them. So, in order to help support the cause, support the channel, and support what we're trying to do here, make sure you hit that subscribe button. It's free, it only takes a second, but it really helps us get our message out there. And to make sure that you're seeing every single video, hit that little alarm bell. That way you're notified if anything new happens because we're going to be staying on top of all of these different things that we're seeing happen across the country. So again, I do appreciate everybody's support, and thank you for watching.
Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here. Now, let's start off by talking about what's going on with the stay. So, as I'm sure you're aware, the ninth circuit motions panel placed a temporary administrative stay on Judge Bonitz's injunction, which basically overturned California's ammunition background checks, the importation laws, and other laws that surrounded the ammunition regulations in the state of California. So, that stay was placed on his injunction so that the law would basically remain in effect until further time. Now, that further time is when a merits panel is going to have a chance to take a look at this as well and decide whether or not to uphold the stay and basically keep the stay in place until the case is resolved, or to deny that stay and uphold Judge Bonitz's injunction.
Now, I made some correlations between the May v. Bon case, which is a case that challenges California's carry ban, the so-called sensitive places in California, and how the Motions panel also placed a stay in that case, but then the merits panel later overturned that injunction. And so, it's kind of the same thing that's happening here. However, in the May case, there was already a merits panel that had been assigned. So, it was possible that in this case too, we could see something happen fairly quickly. However, in this case, in Ro v. Bon, there is no merits panel established as of yet. The merits panel and the Motions panel, they sort of rotate by month, and so you get a fresh three-set judge panel each month, and each time it's determined differently. So, as of right now, there is no merits panel. There's no active merits panel to take a look at this. So, the stay is currently in place until we get that merits panel, the merits panel has a time to take a look at this case and determine whether or not to uphold the stay or uphold the injunction. But again, as of right now, it's kind of in limbo until we get that three-judge panel that can take a look at things a little bit deeper.
Now, I do want to mention that Chuck Michel of Michel & Associates, who is the volunteer president of the CRPA, an organization that if you live in the state of California, you need to be a member of, these guys are up to some pretty big things. They're getting the wins, they are there for you in California, and Michel & Associates honestly is one of the best on the planet. So, I know I don't say this enough, but if you're in California, make sure you become a member of the CRPA. But with that being said, Chuck Michel and the CRPA, Michel & Associates, are going to petition the ninth circuit to have a three-judge merits panel assigned to this case as quickly as possible. Whether or not that'll happen quickly is still kind of up for debate because we know the ninth circuit, they're not very good at these things, and they'll try and delay things. But at least they're going to petition the ninth to have that merits panel assigned quickly.
Okay, so now let's go and talk about those orders that were placed while the injunction was still in effect. So, until February 5th, where the stay was placed. So, there were people out there who decided that they were going to spend everything they had. They went out to their local shop, they went to the store, they picked it up, they made their transaction, they had it in hand, the transaction is complete, it's home, it was all done during the injunction. Now, there was also a lot of people who decided to empty their wallets and do everything online who completed their transaction while the injunction was in effect, but then before the transaction was finished, meaning you had it in hand, the stay was placed. Now, there were some different things that happened here versus the original Freedom Week. Now, in the original Freedom Week, anybody who had made an order was allowed to complete that order, meaning that things were allowed to come into the state as long as you had made that purchase while the injunction was in place because Judge Bonitz kind of wrote that into his own stay. So, he said that anything that you purchased, anything that you acquired, anything that you have is allowed to remain under the injunction while I place a stay on everything else and the law basically goes back into effect. He did that under Duncan v. Bon. So, basically, Judge Bonitz had a little bit more control in how this stay was put into effect. And you know, that's again why people say that they have their Freedom Week stuff. Right? In this instance, the ninth circuit motions panel just basically cut everything off with no explanation and no clarification as to what's happening with those current orders or what to do about those current orders. And so, that's where a lot of the confusion has come in because we had clarification under Judge Bonitz, people knew what to expect. Under the ninth circuit, there has been no clarification. And hopefully, one of these groups, maybe the CRPA or FBC or somebody else can ask the ninth circuit for clarification on this matter. Now, until then, there's going to be a little bit of confusion. We have to kind of go off of what the retailer is telling us. I know for a fact there's some people out there that say that some of their orders have been canceled. These are orders that were made while the injunction was in place, and their orders still got canceled. That's up to the retailer themselves. They determine that maybe they just don't want to deal with it. They're too confused by everything that's going on. They didn't completely understand the stay, and so they decided to cancel it. I think that's absolutely terrible. I think that's the wrong direction and the wrong way to do things, but that's the way that they decided it. However, I also know that there were several people who got their orders in on time, the stay hit on the 5th, and then since the transaction had already been completed, a lot of those were either A) in transit, so they're already being shipped, and then B) they hadn't been shipped yet, but the online place is still going to ship it even though the stay was there prior to it being shipped. So, there's two different camps. There's the camp that canceled, and the camp that says, "Hey look, the transaction was made while it was perfectly legal, we're just going to continue on with this." So, you have to kind of go with whoever you went with online to see what their policy is and if they change their policy or their procedure at all once this day took effect. So again, it depends who you went through.
Now, some of the questions have been, "Am I still able to receive it?" Well, you have to understand there's kind of a chain of custody here, right? And I'm not a lawyer, please don't consider this legal advice, I'm just telling you guys what I am seeing happening out there. But there is a chain of custody that means that if you created a transaction while the injunction was in place, and it's since with UPS, FedEx, or some other shipper, that custody is now neither with the original person that you had it with or yourself, right? So, it is with the person that's bringing it in. And from what I understand, everybody's bringing it in and they're allowing it to go to its final destination, which is your hands directly, right? Again, because there's no clarification from the ninth on that, it seems like the transaction should be just fine. And so, it doesn't seem like anybody who has an order that is currently on its way should have any problems whatsoever.
Now, will there be a problem with those people that had orders that hadn't shipped until after the stay? It doesn't look like it. It doesn't look like they're trying to make criminals out of people here who simply took advantage of something that was perfectly legal at the time. However, that does kind of leave a gray area because again, once the stay was placed on the injunction, that meant that importation and things like that all go back into effect and therefore, if you import something afterward, you could be entering that legal gray area, and it's in that case that you may want to talk to either the seller or maybe even just an attorney who could answer that question for you because once you receive it and if you're in that gray area, you could potentially have a little bit of a problem. But again, that just depends on whether or not they plan on enforcing any of that. But again, when it comes to chain of custody, if it's already out of their hands and it's headed to your hands, you should be perfectly fine.
Now, I should also mention just in case you haven't checked since that stay took effect, that means everything is back to the way that it was before. Since this new law took effect and the backgrounds and everything else in 2019, everything is as it was back then. So, it would have to go to a vendor, it would have to go to somebody else, it couldn't just go directly to you. So, I found out recently that there's actually some companies that have just completely stopped working in California altogether. They just won't ship there, they want nothing to do with it, they've moved away. I made a post about it recently on Instagram, you guys can head over there, it's at The Daily Shooter, but you can check that out. And there's some companies that just have, they've lost interest in dealing with all of the red tape and all the BS that happens in that state, and so they've essentially moved on. But these other companies will still ship in, it'll just have to go to or through the appropriate channels. So again, as of right now, it's exactly as it was before. Until we hear from that merits panel, we don't know which way this is going to go. There are some judges on there that are a little bit more friendly to our cause than others, and hopefully those are the judges that are going to end up on the merit panel. We did have one dissenting judge from the Motions panel who said that they would have not voted for the stay or they did not vote for the stay. It was just two of the three judges that voted for that stay. So again, there is a little bit of a glimmer of hope that we could see the injunction put back in place. If that happens, that would basically mean that the injunction remains in effect until we see some type of resolution, and things would go back to normal, and it would be just more freedom in the state of California, like they deserve in that state. I see some people kind of talk down about Californians and their want to have their freedom back, and people just have kind of written them off. I would suggest that you not do that. You'd be surprised how many people in the state of California are good, standup people who believe in the Constitution and people's rights, and I believe that those people in California would definitely stand up for you if something happened in your state. And remember, what happens in California tends to find a way to move east, so if it happens there, it could definitely happen in other places. So, I just wanted to make you aware of that, maybe answer some questions to whatever effect that I could, even though things are still vague right now, they're still in motion, and we're still seeing a lot of changes. But again, I wanted to bring you the information that I did know, let you know that things are kind of in limbo as far as the merits panel goes and most of the orders or the transactions that were made while the injunction were in effect are still good to go. So anyway, I want to thank you very much for watching. I really do appreciate it. If you haven't done so already, please hit that like and that subscribe button and that little bell notification to let you know when new videos come out, and you guys have a great day.