Two well established cases are now up for review at the Supreme Court. It only takes one of these cases to overturn all "Assault Weapons" bans across the country including MIller v. Bonta in Ca, Washington, New York etc.

Hey everybody, how's it going and welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. So today, I've got some very big, very good news for you. This is so big that it could end all so-called assault weapons bans across the country forever and finally put this thing to bed. Now, you may have heard earlier that a case out of Maryland, which is Bianchi v. Frost, a case that's challenging that state's ban, is now seeking review from the Supreme Court. That case alone could end up overturning all of these bans across the country.

But we just found out that a second case, now a very popular case that you probably have heard about, is also seeking review from the Supreme Court. And now we have two tandem cases from two different circuits and two different states that are now heading up to the Supreme Court at the same time. So let's talk about what's going on.

Before we get started, I want to talk about today's sponsor, which is DeleteMe, an amazing service that allows you to get your online privacy back. Believe it or not, there are data brokerage sites out there whose sole mission is to gather and sell your personal data. So what is DeleteMe and how does it help? Well, DeleteMe is a company that cares about your personal privacy, and so what they will do is collect your information and then search those data broker sites and remove your personal identifying information from them. Now, I personally have a DeleteMe account and in just the first week alone, they've already removed my information from 15 sites. Your dashboard gives you all of the information that you're going to need in order to control your online privacy. For instance, some of the data you can find on your dashboard are listings reviewed; in my case, there were 8,881, and the type of exposed data that they found. So if your online data privacy is important to you, join DeleteMe. Use the link down below to save 20% or use the discount code "Copper Jacket".

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here. Like I said in the beginning, the first case is Bianchi v. Frost, that is out of the state of Maryland, and they have filed for a writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court, for the Supreme Court basically to hear their case. Well, we just found out that the second case that's going to be heading up there is one you might have heard of; it is Beas v. Neil. Now Beas v. Neil is a case that is pretty well established. This is actually a case that originally started with the lawsuit against the city of Neil in Illinois, this is before their whole statewide so-called assault weapons ban. The city of Neil decided that they were going to ban the sale. First lawsuit was filed against the city, and then later amended to take on the entire state ban. That case has also filed for a writ of certiorari up to the Supreme Court. So we have those two cases; we have Maryland and Illinois now both heading up to the Supreme Court at the same time.

Okay, so let's go and talk about these two cases and why I believe that the Supreme Court is going to take at least one of them. And we only need them to take one of them because if the Supreme Court finds that these bans are clearly unconstitutional, it would make all other cases moot, including Miller out in the ninth circuit. It would end all of the bans forever. That would be it. There'd be no more playing games, no more dancing around things, no more extending timeout and making these cases last nearly a decade. That would be the end of it. We only need that one. So regardless if Maryland goes up or they decide to hear the Illinois ban, either way if we get a win out of this, it's massive, it's national.

The reason is because these courts, and this is the reason why I believe they're going to take at least one of these, these courts are clearly dancing around. They are basically putting their hand in the face of the Supreme Court and saying, "I don't care what you said, we're going to find our own way to justify these bans." One of the ways that they've been doing that throughout these appellate courts is to say that they're just too close to what's being used in the military. We know that they're not the same thing. We know that they don't have this feature or that feature, but they're just close to what the military uses and therefore the state should be allowed to ban them. So we're going to uphold the ban.

Another argument that has been used and a way to uphold the bans in these states is for these judges to say that these things are clearly dangerous and unusual. And since they consider them dangerous and unusual, they're going to allow the ban to be upheld as well, ignoring Brown altogether. Brown says, "Well, number one, how does it implicate the Second Amendment? You have to basically just look at the text of the Second Amendment to see whether or not this particular thing is implicated." But they're saying, and these different courts are saying, that these are not even considered arms and therefore they don't even have to apply text, history, and tradition because they're not considered arms, therefore not protected by the Second Amendment. And so that's just the end of it for these courts altogether right there.

Now, we all know that they're arms and they're protected by the Constitution. It doesn't take a genius to figure that out. The Supreme Court's going to see exactly what the circuit courts are doing here and I think that they're going to have to step in to stop the abuse that has been happening throughout these circuit courts that are even ignoring the common use test. The common use test that says if they're in common use for lawful purposes then they can't be banned by the state. You take a look at common use; there's tens of millions of these out there in common use for lawful purposes today. If you want to know what is considered common use, we could take a look back at the Katano case that dealt with tasers being used by the public for self-defense and at the time that case was decided, there were only hundreds of thousands or a hundred thousand in common use and they considered that to be common use and to be considered arms. So if we're talking about hundreds of thousands and that is enough to uphold the common use test, then tens of millions is clear and undeniable that they are protected.

Now, if we take a look at the petition from the National Association for Gun Rights and Robert Beas in Beas v. Neil, we can see the questions that are being presented in that case to the Supreme Court. So it says here, questions presented:

  1. Is the State of Illinois's ban of certain handguns constitutional in light of the holding in DC v. Heller that handgun bans are categorically unconstitutional?
  2. Is the incommon use test announced in DC v. Heller hopelessly circular and therefore unworkable?
  3. Can the government ban the sale, purchase, and possession of certain semi-automatic firearms and firearm magazines that are possessed by millions of law-abiding Americans for lawful purposes when there is no analogous Founding Era regulation?

So, it's that last one right there that is going to have the biggest effect because not only does it deal with the so-called "assault weapons ban," but it also deals with the ban on magazines that can have more than 10 rounds or what they consider to be a higher capacity.

Now, these two cases, the one out of Maryland is being represented by the Second Amendment Foundation and the Firearms Policy Coalition. The one out of Illinois is being headed up by the National Association for Gun Rights. These are very big, no-compromise organizations with incredible attorneys that are capable of arguing this case straight to a win. So that is really good that we have those big names that are headed up to the Supreme Court.

So now starts the waiting game where the Supreme Court is going to take a look at all of the cases that were presented to them and they're going to pick and choose which ones they decide to hear. Now, these two cases being two very big, high-profile cases, I guarantee you are going to be on their radar. I'm sure they're already on their radar and they're going to have to determine whether or not they're going to see one, both, or neither. That's kind of what is up in the air now. So, the Supreme Court's going to have to look at that and determine if they're going to hear any of these. If they do, just based on what the Supreme Court has said in the past, I believe that we would see a massive win here that would again invalidate every single law like this across the country. That would basically be the end of it. We need the Supreme Court to step up. We need the Supreme Court to step in and clarify that these are protected by the Constitution and that bans like this are not allowed to happen. They clarified in DC v. Heller saying you're not allowed to simply outright ban an entire category of firearms for whatever purpose it is because they're in common use for lawful purposes. Here is pretty much the exact same thing. These are in common use for lawful purposes. There are tens of millions out there and so they just need to say basically the same thing that they said in Heller, is that you cannot ban an entire category of arms that are in common use for lawful purposes and that would be basically the end of it right there.

So, the big news is not that just one is going up, it's that two are going up. So now we have double the chance to actually get one of these cases heard and I am excited to see what happens here. So again, now starts the waiting game. We'll see which one, if any, they decide to take. But if they do decide to take one, get ready. I think there's going to be a huge victory for us out of it. So I wanted to share that with you and thank you all very much for watching. I really do appreciate it. Please like, subscribe, and you guys have a great day.