According to the NAGR and a subsequent video posted by Hanna Hill, Executive Director, the NSSF bailed on a very important case challenging Colorado's mag ban, forcing it to be withdrawn.

NAGR Video Response -

California Attorney General Rob Bonta recently discussed a new plan with millions in new funding to increase confiscations from 9 different protective orders including GVRO's. San Diego touting 3,700 items confiscated to date with an "expansion" to come.

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. You guys are going to want to stick around for this one—it is absolutely outrageous. I just watched a press conference with Attorney General Rob Bonta from the state of California, and they're not even trying to hide it anymore. Mass confiscation in the state of California is absolutely underway, and you guys are going to want to see this. So let's talk about it.

Hey, real quick before we get started, if you're somebody who carries to defend yourself or your loved ones, make sure that you don't go it alone. Make sure you have somebody that's got your back, like Attorneys on Retainer. Attorneys on Retainer is not an insurance company; they're actual attorneys. So if you have an incident, and you have to defend yourself, you give Attorneys on Retainer a call. You speak to an actual attorney on the phone, and they will be there to defend you, even if it's questionable. Unlike some insurance-backed programs that may have to run it through the insurance company first to ensure coverage, that's not going to happen with Attorneys on Retainer. You have an incident, you call them, and they are there to defend you, even if it's in a gun-free zone or something like that. It is absolutely priceless to have in your wallet—get that Attorneys on Retainer card, be a member just like I am, and have that extra peace of mind when you go out.

Now, like me, a lot of us don't have that disposable income to hire a good quality attorney if something happens, so if you would like that peace of mind, check the description box down below.

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here. This press conference, which took place in San Diego with the district attorney, talked a lot about what they have already done in terms of confiscation numbers. It also talked about a new influx of cash from the federal government that is going to help them push the future of confiscation, and they're actually calling it 2.0—so this is like their second round. The things that they said in this press conference were shocking and eye-opening, and I think something that people need to see.

I mean, check this out: in San Diego alone, GVROs have helped them take 3,700 weapons off the streets. The district attorney proudly announced that their region has received more than $4 million in state grant funds, and that this funding will lead to one of the most significant expansions of gun violence prevention work in California since GVRO laws passed 10 years ago. My office refers to this effort as Gun Violence Prevention 2.0. The grant funds will help us better identify dangerous people so that we can get court orders requiring them to surrender their firearms. We will expand our work not just to GVROs but to all California gun-prohibiting civil orders.

You can see from that press conference alone that she is extremely excited that they've taken 3,700 firearms from people who haven't been convicted of anything yet. Remember, these are just accusations at this point, right? Then she openly says that they're going to use that money to try and identify even more people that they can then disarm without due process. But that's not the end of it. As a matter of fact, they've even created a new task force, and this task force is intended to go and take them from you. We will expand our work not just to GVROs but to all California gun-prohibiting civil orders, and then, with the assistance of the newly formed San Diego Countywide Gun Relinquishment Task Force, we will make sure that the firearms are surrendered.

Now, don't think this is just San Diego—this is all of California. As a matter of fact, Attorney General Rob Bonta, when he spoke, said that this is a time to celebrate and that they're going to take full advantage of not just GVROs, but nine different protective orders that would have somebody's Second Amendment rights removed from them. Today is a day to celebrate the expansion of that work, of that impact that San Diego has already had in the city, and now it's going regional—full use of all nine of the protective orders that remove firearms from folks who, after due process in a court order, have been deemed to be too dangerous and unsafe to have the firearm. So, removed legally, appropriately, to keep our community safe.

Now, everybody's been saying this, and I've been saying this on this channel for about 13 years now: registration leads to confiscation. How do you think California knows that people have what they have? Well, because in the state of California, everything that you get has to be registered, and if you register it, the state basically has this database that says, okay, so-and-so was served this protective order, and under his name, we have these registered items. So they know exactly what's there before they even knock on your door. So, registration has officially led to confiscation, and this is a prime example of that, and it's a prime example for every state that has red flag laws across the country. If there is some type of registration, the state's going to know exactly what you have, and they're going to come get it.

That's the core of the problem that we have here—it's not just that registration leads to confiscation, it's that the confiscation is happening, and people aren't making as big of a stink about this as they absolutely need to be. Again, this is just somebody who's been accused of something. In the state of California, simply acquiring armor could be enough to get you accused. If your neighbor happens to see it, or somebody you live with doesn't like the fact that you got a plate, or a shield, I mean, who knows, right? If they don't like that, they can use that in order to file one of these orders against you.

So, it has come down to the fact that thousands upon thousands—and again, that 3,700, that's just San Diego, we're not talking about statewide—statewide, the numbers are in the tens of thousands. But if you take a look at that, we're talking about tens of thousands that have been confiscated just based on accusations alone, with no due process. I know that they like to say this protects due process, but if I don't find out about something that's being done against my rights until the knock is on the door, or a paper shows up in the mail saying there's going to be a knock on the door, then due process doesn't exist. You know, it's just a matter of somebody accusing and a judge signing it—that's all there is to it.

So again, this is something that really needs to be on the forefront. It needs to be stopped, it needs to be overturned, and we need to put an end to these confiscations right now. The best thing you could do is always, you know, write, send an email, join the groups that are standing up to support you—CRPA, GOA, FPC, all these different groups that are there trying to combat this stuff. It's very important to be part of the solution and not just sit back and go, "Wow, that sucks," because you never know—just one little small thing, and it could be used.

So, I wanted to make you guys aware of that because I think this is a bigger deal than people are making it. We need to overturn this type of law absolutely right now. I want to thank you all very much for watching; I really do appreciate it. Please like, subscribe, and you guys have a great day.

In this video I break down how a recent decision on an "assault weapon" ban just set the stage for the Supreme Court to settle the issue nationwide!

The video discusses a recent legal development where the U.S. Supreme Court might be compelled to review state bans on "assault weapons." A recent decision by the Fourth Circuit Court upheld Maryland's ban on certain semi-automatic rifles, ruling them as military-style weapons that can be regulated. This decision creates a "final merits" case, which the Supreme Court has previously indicated is necessary for them to review such bans. He believes that despite the immediate loss in the Fourth Circuit, this could lead to a significant Supreme Court case on the constitutionality of assault weapon bans, potentially forcing conservative justices to address the issue.

The video discusses a recent partial victory in New Jersey for the Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) regarding gun laws. The Supreme Court had remanded the Cheeseman v. Platkin case back to lower courts, challenging the AR-15 assault weapons and large capacity magazine bans. The judge ruled the AR-15 ban unconstitutional under the Bruen and Heller decisions but upheld the magazine ban for public safety reasons. The FPC has appealed this ruling, arguing there is no historical precedent for magazine bans and emphasizing the fight will continue.

Federal District Court Judge Reed O'connor granted summary judgement against another AFT Rule. The judge scolded the agency stating that it overstepped its authority and that we should be wary of cases like this. Also stating that the agency avoided the "democratic process" in its redefinition. He explained how the agency continues to violate the APA.

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. So, after seven long weeks, we finally have a decision from the Supreme Court as to what they are going to do with the multiple so-called assault weapons bans that currently sit before it. Now, this came down to an 8-to-1 decision. The only dissenting judge was Judge Alo, so it was almost unanimous. Let's go ahead and talk about what exactly happened and what this means for the future.

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here. Like I said before, Justice Alo was the only one that was in dissent in this 8-to-1 decision. This 8-to-1 decision did something that I completely did not expect. I was expecting a GVR to be granted, vacate the lower court's decision, and remand it back down to them. But that's not what happened at all. As a matter of fact, they decided to deny all of these cases.

Now, I know there's going to be a lot of people that are going to be seriously out there, and I guarantee you, I was one of those until I read Justice Thomas's thoughts and his statement. Now, I'm going to show you guys Justice Thomas's statement here in just a second, and that should ease things up just a bit. But basically, what these eight justices said is that these cases, being interlocutory, meaning that there's more to do at the lower court level, should be left for the lower courts to finish before they ever make it up to the Supreme Court. So, they basically want them to exhaust every avenue that they have prior to accepting it up at the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court basically wants a finished case.

Now, there's some good and some bad about that. Obviously, the lower courts, the Seventh Circuit, they can drag things on, and they can move things around and make things take time, just like with Miller out of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which has been going on for nearly a decade now. They can kind of do something similar. However, Justice Thomas gave them more clear instructions and I think addressed some things from the lower court that will basically overturn at least one of these cases within the lower court. So, let me just read this to you real quick. Now, I want you guys to listen to this very closely because this is very powerful language. This language could help overturn the bans in the Ninth Circuit, in the Seventh Circuit, and if it doesn't get overturned by the lower courts, he's basically saying, bring it back up to us. We will fix things. We will overturn it.

So, it says here, a statement from Justice Thomas decided July 2, 2024: "The petitions for writ of certiorari are denied. Justice Alo would grant the petitions for writ of certiorari. Statement of Justice Thomas: The state of Illinois enacted a law that makes it a felony to possess what Illinois branded 'assault weapons,' a term defined to include AR-15s." Now, this next part is extremely important, and you have to understand what they're acknowledging here, where it says, "The AR-15 is the most popular semi-automatic rifle in America." So again, they're acknowledging that and therefore undeniably in common use today. And that is, uh, that's from Heller. So it obviously, by Supreme Court standards, passes the common use test for lawful purposes.

Now, what's interesting here is that Justice Thomas, after he mentions Heller, he also mentions Kavanaugh in his dissent in Cargill and Sotomayor in her dissent in Cargill, describing "semi-automatic rifles such as AR-15s as commonly available." So that's what she wrote in her dissent, and that is now what is being used. So, I just thought that that was really interesting. It also says here, "Petitioners sought a preliminary injunction against the enforcement of the law, arguing that the law violates their Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit rejected petitioners' request for preliminary injunction, concluding that the AR-15 is not protected by the Second Amendment, and that's in Bevis v. City of Naperville." According to the Seventh Circuit, the rifle selected by millions of Americans for self-defense and other lawful purposes does not even fall within the scope of arms referred to by the Second Amendment.

This court is rightly wary of taking cases on an interlocutory posture, but I hope we will consider the important issues presented by these petitions after the cases reach final judgment. Now, he continues on to say, "We have never squarely addressed what types of weapons are arms protected by the Second Amendment. To be sure, we explained in D.C. v. Heller that the Second Amendment's protection extends prima facie to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding. And we noted that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, recognizing the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. But this minimal guidance is far from a comprehensive framework for evaluating restrictions on types of weapons, and it leaves open essential questions such as what makes a weapon bearable, dangerous, or unusual, etc. The Seventh Circuit's decision illustrates why this court must provide more guidance on which weapons the Second Amendment covers. By contorting what little guidance our precedents provide, the Seventh Circuit," and you have to see there that they did, Justice Thomas noticed that they contorted their precedent, "the Seventh Circuit concluded that the Second Amendment does not protect militaristic 'militaristic weapons.' It then tautologically defined militaristic weapons as those that may be reserved for military use. The Seventh Circuit's contrived non-militaristic limitation on the arms protected by the Second Amendment seems unmoored from both text and history."

Now, this is an interesting quote as well, where it says, "The AR-15 is a civilian, not military, weapon. No army in the world uses a service rifle that is only semi-automatic. In my view, Illinois's ban is highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semi-automatic firearms used for lawful purposes." And it continues on even to say, "It is difficult to see how the Seventh Circuit could have concluded that the most widely owned semi-automatic rifles are not arms protected by the Second Amendment. The Seventh Circuit stressed that its merits analysis was merely a preliminary look at the subject. But if the Seventh Circuit ultimately allows Illinois to ban America's most common civilian rifle, we can and should review the decision once the cases reach a final judgment. The court must not permit the Seventh Circuit to relegate the Second Amendment to a second-class right."

Now, on one hand, this sucks. They should have taken the cases, they should have heard them, they should have clarified things for the lower courts, they shouldn't allow people's rights to be trampled on while the appellate courts take their time and waste their time on these things. They should provide some relief, some constitutional relief to the people while everything is figured out. And in doing so, they could have used language like that or language that would have completely overturned every other ban in this country. So, this is really bad. It's bad.

But on the other hand, it's also good in the fact that they're saying, "Hey, look, you got it wrong. These are in common use for lawful purposes. It's the most popular one in America. There's no way that you can get around that. It's not militaristic. No military in the world would ever use something like this. So, you can't use those as well." And so, the Seventh Circuit's going to have to look at that. They're going to have to look at what Justice Thomas said, what some of the others said, and they're going to have to use that when they're coming up with their final decisions in these cases. And that might work out in our favor. But even if it works out in our favor, I still think that the Supreme Court should have taken them. Whether they take them now or later is just putting things off. I understand the whole interlocutory thing. They want the lower courts to finish their work before they step in. But dude, at some point, like, come on. It has been, you know, decades now that we have been trying to get relief here, and, you know, we're not getting any help. So, I think that the Supreme Court should have done something. But I am happy that it's not over.

Now, people are going to say, "What about a GVR? Why didn't they just GVR it, right? They could have granted, vacated, and remanded it down to the Seventh Circuit." Well, in doing that, that would have actually taken more time because that would have wiped everything off the table, and the Seventh Circuit would have had to start all over again. And who knows if the Seventh Circuit would have done what the Ninth Circuit did, which is send things back down to the district court level to start all over, like post-Bruen or something, right? And then the district court would have to figure everything out, and it would have to go through the entire process again up at the Seventh Circuit. By not denying it, right, by simply sending it back down for them to finish up, it keeps its place. It's like a bookmark, right? So, it keeps its spot in line, and it doesn't move anything out of the way. So, everything is as it was, and now it can move forward. So, that's kind of where I think I'm actually glad that the GVR didn't happen and that they denied it. If they were going to deny it, but they denied it now, at least it stays in its same pattern, meaning that it would be back up to the Supreme Court a lot faster in the future, possibly next conference. I know there are people that are worried that it's going to last for years, but I think next year's conference we're going to see these back up here.

So, I want to let you guys know about that. Thank you all very much for watching. I really do appreciate it. It's pretty unfortunate. I was hoping we would get some type of support here, but we didn't. Well, not much at least. We got a little bit. Anyway, thanks again. Have a good one.

Today the Supreme Court Issued its decision in Garland v. Cargill. An FPC case that challenges the ATFs ban and "final rule". Justice Thomas authored the majority opinion writing that the ban is unlawful. This was a 6-3 decision

Hey everybody, how's it going, and welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. Today is a great day—we just got the decision from the Supreme Court in Garland v. Cargill, which is the FPC case that challenged the ATF's ban on bump stocks. The majority opinion was written by Justice Clarence Thomas, and the majority has overturned the ATF's bump stock ban. Let's talk about it.

Hey, real quick, make sure you hit that subscribe button and that little notification bell. We have some really good things coming down the pipeline. If you know someone interested in this topic, share it out on your socials and let them know what's going on.

This was not a unanimous decision; it was split along ideological lines. Justice Thomas wrote the opinion for the majority, who seem to believe in the rule of law and the laws Congress actually passes, including the Constitution. The dissent, coming from Justices Sotomayor, Jackson, and Kagan, seems to be more driven by emotion and advocacy.

Now, I want to read a bit of Justice Thomas's opinion. Keep in mind, this was never really about bump stocks. It was about ATF overreach—their ability to interpret the NFA and GCA in ways that expand their regulatory authority. Essentially, the ATF took it too far and continues to do so, making this decision a referendum on their recent final rules.

On June 14th, 2024, Justice Thomas delivered the opinion of the Court: "Congress has long since restricted access to 'machine guns,' a category of firearms defined by the ability to 'shoot automatically more than one shot by a single function of the trigger.' Semi-automatic firearms, which require shooters to re-engage the trigger for every shot, are not machine guns. This case asks whether or not a bump stock, an accessory for a semi-automatic rifle that allows the shooter to rapidly re-engage the trigger and achieve a high rate of fire, converts the rifle into a 'machine gun.' We hold that it does not and therefore affirm."

In the following paragraphs, Justice Thomas and the majority explain why they believe a bump stock does not convert a semi-automatic rifle into a machine gun. They cite examples, one being that a bump stock does not enable a single function of the trigger to discharge multiple rounds. The trigger still needs to be reset and pulled back each time, regardless of assistance from the bump stock.

Some of the language in the opinion is interesting and could be useful for challenging "assault weapon" bans, as it clarifies that these firearms are not identical to military weapons. Although I read most of the opinion (about 90%, skipping some of the dissent as it drove me nuts), I found some valuable nuggets we can use.

Justice Alito, who wrote a concurrence, seemed to suggest his hands were tied. He appeared to want to uphold the ban but was compelled to follow the law, which is how it's supposed to work. He indicated to Congress that if they want changes, they must write new law to clarify the NFA and GCA.

Justice Sotomayor's dissent was ideological, reflecting a viewpoint driven by emotional responses to specific events rather than strict adherence to the law. It seemed to advocate for banning bump stocks based on their use in high-profile incidents, using legal arguments to justify a broader agenda.

This decision is significant news. We'll continue to analyze the opinion to find elements that could aid in other cases, similar to the benefits gained from the Bruen decision, a carry case. This opinion could offer positive benefits as well.

Thank you all for watching. I really appreciate it. Another great day here—have a good one!

The Supreme Court held conference last Thursday on 5-23 and today we learned the fate of multiple cases that we have been watching very closely. Several cases from the state of Illinois hang on the Supreme Courts willingness to hear them. Today we got the latest decision.

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. I know that everybody's been waiting for some time now. Some of these cases actually got to the Supreme Court back in February, and here we are at the end of May. People have been waiting to see whether or not the Supreme Court is going to take up one of these incredibly important cases. We're talking about cases dealing with modern rifle bans, magazine restrictions, and limitations. There are several different lawsuits currently sitting before the Supreme Court right now, like Harold v. Raoul and so forth. The Supreme Court just keeps punting these things down, and last Thursday, they had another conference to determine what they were going to do with them.

We had a day off for the Supreme Court yesterday, so when things would typically come out yesterday, they didn't. Instead, the results of the last conference came out today. So, we're going to talk about what happened to all of these different cases. Let's get to it.

Before we get started, I know I mention this quite a bit, but more than half the people that watch these videos are still not yet subscribed. If you don't mind, hit that subscribe button. It's free, it only takes a second, but it really helps us expand and grow and get our message out to more people. If you're somebody that wants to stay on top of your constitutional rights, go ahead and hit that little alarm bell. I've been doing this for about 12 years now, and we're going to keep pushing forward. So, a huge thank you to everybody that supported this channel up until this point and a thank you to everybody who subscribes today. Let's get to it.

Why don't we start off by taking a look at what's before the Supreme Court right now so that you have a better understanding of exactly what's at stake? Each one of these cases was set for conference on May 23rd, which again was last Thursday. So, that's when they were up for consideration. The first one is going to be Harold v. Raoul. That is an excellent case which challenges Illinois's so-called assault weapons ban, their magazine capacity restrictions, and so forth. It asks the court several questions. That's one that I would love to see them take. We also have Herrera v. Raoul, which falls more along the lines of whether or not these devices and these tools are actually protected by the text of the Second Amendment.

Then we have Barnett v. Raoul, and the question there is whether Illinois's sweeping ban on common and lawful arms violates the Second Amendment. Again, they're basically asking the court to clarify that what they're doing in Illinois is actually a violation of our constitutional rights. We also have NAGR v. City of Naperville, which asks several questions about the common use test. It asks whether the state of Illinois's ban on certain handguns is constitutional in light of the holding in DC v. Heller, which stated that handgun bans are categorically unconstitutional. There are a couple more questions after that, but that's a very important one as well.

Then we also have Langley v. Kelly, which questions whether the state of Illinois's absolute ban on certain commonly owned semi-automatic handguns is constitutional in light of the holding of DC v. Heller. Again, this is similar to NAGR. It also questions whether the state of Illinois's absolute ban on commonly owned semi-automatic handgun magazines over 15 is constitutional. Again, these are all challenging either bans or limitations and restrictions. Each one of these is, in some ways, a little bit different.

Lastly, we have GOA v. Raoul, and their question to the Supreme Court is whether Illinois's categorical ban on millions of the most commonly owned firearms and ammunition magazines in the nation, including the AR, violates the Second Amendment. That is the basic breakdown of what those questions are and the cases that are currently sitting before the Supreme Court right now, just waiting for their moment.

If you saw my last video, you know we've been waiting on this for quite a while because the first time that these things went to conference, we all waited for that following Monday to see whether or not they would take any of them or maybe GVR them, meaning Grant, Vacate, and Remand back down to the lower courts. What were they going to do? There should be some movement. The only case that we ended up losing was the Maryland case, so they basically launched that one out. These other ones were still set for a further conference on the 23rd.

There was a day off yesterday, so today they released the fact that again they have decided to completely punt these down the road to another conference set for May 30th, which is just the day after tomorrow. So again, another Thursday conference. When they were punted the first time from that first conference to the 23rd, I thought maybe they needed more time to research and look up whether or not one kind of conflicts with the other or they're too similar. Maybe they're going to take one over another, and they're still doing their job, right? Whether or not they're going to take one was still kind of up in the air. But now here we are, and some of these are on their second or third time up for consideration, and they're still putting them down the line. It doesn't give me all that much hope. It kind of takes some of that hope away.

I'm hearing that leading scholars in this area are actually saying that if it goes to conference this Thursday and we don't hear anything again, it's an extremely bad sign. I would be stunned if the Supreme Court doesn't take something this time because obviously, with the amount of questions that are being asked and the number of lawsuits that have made their way to the Supreme Court, it is absolutely high time that they take one of these and simply answer some of these questions that we're asking. That is their job. This is a constitutional question. We want clarification. We want to know things and we want the government set straight. We want the lower courts to know that what they're doing is ignoring Heller and Bruen in a lot of cases. They are just completely twisting it and rewarding it so that it fits their own personal agendas, and then they're coming out with these rulings that are just absolutely ludicrous. A lot of them.

So, this stuff is all over the place, and the Supreme Court is the one that needs to step in and take these. There have to be other people out there that are as pissed as I am. I checked on every single one of these cases. I went to each one of their docket numbers and I checked the schedule to see exactly what's going on. Every single one that we mentioned here today has been reset for hearing on Thursday the 30th, the day after tomorrow. The chance is not gone; it's just very minimal at this point. We'll see what happens, but we're not going to find anything out again until next Monday.

As of right now, they just keep punting it down the line and not taking responsibility for being in charge or being above the inferior courts. I just wanted to make you guys aware that that's what's going on right now. It doesn't seem like anybody is working for us and they're just letting it go because they don't want to be responsible for saying the truth that they are protected by the Constitution, that they are not bannable, and these things are, since before the founding of this country and since before the Constitution, legally able to be owned, possessed, and used by us.

Anyway, I want to thank you all very much for watching. I really do appreciate it. Please like, subscribe, and you guys have a great day.

A new law is set to take effect in California on July 1st. This new law comes from a bill passed in 2023, AB28. This new law is an 11% tax that will be eventually passed to the consumer and as of now it has NO lawsuit filed against it.

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. July 1st, 2024, is a date that everyone in the state of California should be paying attention to because that is the date when new gun control laws take effect. Now, there is one specific new law that is set to start, and I have been getting a lot of questions about it. There seems to be some confusion about it, and this is also one that does not have a lawsuit against it. This is something that I think a lot of people are really worried about and confused about. We're going to talk about it today, and I'll see if I can answer your questions. So, let's get to it.

Now, speaking of California post-Bruin, there are a lot of new people getting their carry permits for the very first time. Let me tell you, you do not want to go it alone if you carry to defend yourself or your loved ones. You need to get attorneys on retainer, and I'll put a link down below. Attorneys on retainer is not a big blown-up company that uses a third-party insurance company filled with a bunch of bean counters who determine whether or not they're going to cover your claim. Sometimes a self-defense scenario doesn't work out exactly as you would imagine, and you could end up in handcuffs. I don't want to be speaking to some guy at an insurance company for that.

With attorneys on retainer, they are attorneys, so when you call them, you're speaking to an attorney on the phone as your first contact, which gets you instant attorney-client privilege. It is absolutely priceless to have in your wallet. Now, your membership with these attorneys actually gets you quite a bit of coverage in all 50 states: 24/7/365 emergency line licensed with a staff attorney, 100% of your criminal and self-defense fees covered through trial, free strategy sessions, and additional non-self-defense legal matters at 35% off. All of that coverage includes bail bonds, expert witnesses, investigator fees, and an emergency contact card that gives you the information you need. These guys will cover you when others will not, so you definitely need to check out attorneys on retainer. The link again is down below, and I've got some significant savings for you down there as well, so check that out.

Okay, so one of the new laws that I'm getting the most questions about, starting on July 1st, 2024, is the new 11% tax. People are pretty upset about that. The reason is that things are already so expensive in California. You're talking about huge taxes, and then there are fees tacked on top of that, your background check fees, and then you have to do your safety certificate and pay a fee for that. There are all sorts of things already going on. Adding another 11% tax would essentially make a 22% tax on top of all of those other fees when you're trying to get something. This is going to be huge. It's going to make it completely unaffordable for some people. Really, what it is doing is stopping an entire class of people from being able to afford one of their rights.

One of the questions I'm getting is whether there will be lawsuits to fight back against this. Keep in mind that this is not an 11% tax directly on the people; it's an 11% tax on the industry. This 11% tax on the industry cannot be absorbed by the industry. I can tell you right now that margins are pretty low. An 11% tax on the industry would be damning, so what they're going to do is translate that 11% tax into an additional fee tacked onto whatever you buy. Even though it's not a sales tax, it will be a tax assessed by the consumer. People are upset about it, and rightly so. One of the questions I've been getting is why there is no lawsuit challenging this. The answer is that there is currently no lawsuit challenging that 11%.

Let me answer why that is. Before we talk about why there's not a lawsuit against this—because we would definitely expect one—I want to ease your mind a little bit by telling you that Chuck Michelle, the founding member of Michelle and Associates and the volunteer president of the CRPA, said that they're chomping at the bit to get to this. They're not the only ones. This gives me hope because CRPA and Michelle and Associates, especially together, are an unbeatable team and some of the best out there. That's at least some good news. We all want to file a lawsuit against this law. The National Shooting Sports Foundation represents manufacturers and retailers, and they have the funding. They're ready to pull the trigger and have lawyers lined up. They're ready to do it. It's not as simple as you might think to challenge this tax. That said, if there's a way, we have the will.

I'm going to put this in the simplest terms because it doesn't need to be confusing or drawn out. The reason there's no lawsuit yet is that there's no plaintiff. While this law exists, it hasn't taken effect yet, so nobody has been subject to that additional 11% tax. Since nobody's been subject to it, we don't have a plaintiff. There needs to be a plaintiff first who can say, "Hey, this has affected me in a negative way. I feel like it's violating my constitutional rights," or whatever the case ends up being. This case is going to be more challenging than other straightforward TOA cases. When we say that California banned something they are not allowed to ban because it's protected by the Constitution, that's a straight-up Second Amendment case. They can take that to court and use Bruin and so forth. This, being an excise tax not directly aimed at the consumer but at the industry, even though it will affect the consumer, will be a lot more difficult to challenge. But the fact that we have groups willing to challenge it is very good news. There is basically no case yet, and we can expect no case until after this actually takes effect because there's no plaintiff.

The problem is it's not a clear Second Amendment case because of its nature as a tax. There are a lot of tangential issues. This happens sometimes; you get involved in a lawsuit and end up spending tens of thousands of dollars litigating some side issue like standing or whether your case is a facial or an as-applied challenge. That just costs a lot of money and wastes a lot of time. One of the issues slowing down the filing of a lawsuit is the doctrine that says in order to challenge a tax, you first have to pay the tax.

I know this isn't a very long video, but I was just recently out in California for Mother's Day weekend, so I spent a few days out there. While I was there, I met some people, and one of the things we talked about was that 11% tax. There was a lot of confusion about it. People thought it was an 11% tax directly on the consumer. People were asking, "What's going on with it? What's the status? Are there lawsuits?" More than one person I met brought it up. If there's that much confusion about it, it should be something we talk about. So if you know anybody wondering what's going on, make sure you share this video with them. If you haven't subscribed yet, continue to subscribe. We've got some big stuff coming up that we definitely need to talk about, including stuff happening at SCOTUS. Again, hit that subscribe button and the little bell notification. Thank you all very much for watching. You guys have a good one.