The 9th Circuit Court has issued an order in the case of Boland v. Bonta. A case that challenges the California "roster". Boland was waiting before the 9th Circuit after the state appealed an injunction by a Federal District Court Judge which overturned a majority of the "roster" requirements. Now the 9th has decided to delay this case pending "Duncan"

In this video I break down an important update in the Duncan California mag case being reviewed in the 9th Circuit.

Armed Scholar on Social Media:

Twitter: https://twitter.com/armedscholaryt

Twitch: https://www.twitch.tv/armedscholar

Today a Federal District Court Judge, appointed by Obama ruled in favor of the 2nd Amendment. This is a special case dealing with a long standing infringement of people with certain overturned or expunged convictions.

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. So it's very rare that we get back-to-back 2A wins, especially in the state of California, but that's what we have here. And this time, it didn't come from Judge Roger T Bonitz; this one came from a different federal district court judge, as a matter of fact, appointed by Obama. So let's talk about what's going on.

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here. As I'm sure everybody watching this video knows, there are a lot of dumb laws in the state of California, and every year they seem to make more and more, even if they don't make sense, even if they're unconstitutional. It doesn't matter; these people are just up there thinking of new ways to restrict pretty much everything that you do in that state. If you ever decide to dive down that rabbit hole, the only suggestion that I have for you is get a helmet because it's a rough ride.

Regardless, one of those laws that is unconstitutional, in my opinion, and dumb, is going to be a law that says if you've ever been convicted of a felony in any other state or anywhere in the world, really, and that felony was then overturned, expunged, removed from your record, whatever, California does not care. They don't care that it was overturned, they don't care that it was washed away, they don't care that it doesn't exist anymore. You have still lost your Second Amendment rights in the state of California for the rest of your life.

So with that being said, there are several people that live in the state of California that had felony convictions in other places for whatever reason. Those felony convictions no longer exist, but they still can't practice their rights in the state of California. So they decided to sue the state. Now, this story, at least the one that I'm going to tell you, is absolutely wild, and you are not going to believe it because one of the people who didn't have their rights while being in California was actually a cop for the last several decades in the state of California. As a matter of fact, he even had his Coe which was issued by the state of California. So we have a guy here that's a cop that was an instructor in law enforcement, had his Coe, but then after retiring and leaving law enforcement, he goes to try and get something personally, and he gets rejected. He's told no, you can't own anything personally because of this law.

So apparently, in the state of California, if you are somebody who had one of these previous felony convictions that has since been overturned, you could become a law enforcement officer, you can train other law enforcement officers, and you could serve the state as much as you want. But the second that you are out of public service, you are now banned from practicing your Second Amendment rights. That is how absolutely nutty this entire thing is. So they decided to, again, sue the state of California and take it before the judge.

Now, like I said in the very beginning, we're talking about an Obama-appointed judge who had some scathing remarks about the state of California and what they were doing here. So this is Judge James Donado, again, an Obama appointee, and he had some things to say about the state of California. Obviously, he had some things to say about James and being a law enforcement officer and everything else that the state of California allowed him to do while he was in public service. But he had some things to say about the other plaintiffs in this case as well. One of the things that he said that I thought was pretty pertinent here is that he said, "The undisputed facts indicate that Linton and Stewart, the other plaintiffs, are also fairly described as law-abiding citizens. Linton is a veteran of the United States Navy with a clean criminal record for the past 37 years. Stewart has had a clean criminal record for the past 48 years. And California simply turned a blind eye to these circumstances and did not account for them in any meaningful way in its discussion of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms."

So the judge is basically saying not only are they not considered felons anymore by the entire country and by the legal system itself, but these guys have been out of trouble. They haven't had any issues with law enforcement since that point, and in these cases, multiple decades that these guys have been exactly what, you know, California says you're supposed to be, a law-abiding citizen. And yet, California just simply overlooked that fact because of this law. And because of that, the judge decided to side with the plaintiffs and say that the plaintiffs have had their rights restricted unfairly and their rights are now restored.

So the judge sided with the plaintiffs in this case, restoring the Second Amendment rights of these people. Now, here's one of the takeaways from this: it only applies to these three plaintiffs right now. And while people might say, "Well, that sucks, it only applies to them, you know, it'd be nice if it applied to everybody else who had a similar circumstance," it does, in a lot of ways, apply to everybody else who has a similar circumstance because all you had to do if you decided to challenge this in court yourself would simply point to this district court judge's decision as precedent for this particular matter.

So where precedent didn't exist in California for something like this before, it does now. You can simply point to the same set of facts and circumstances that were used in this case to essentially win your case without there really being that much of a battle. I, for one, have always thought stuff like this was absolutely ridiculous and completely unconstitutional. Losing your rights for life, your right to vote for life, your right to protect yourself for life, I mean, losing your rights for life for what amounts to nonviolent felony, people. I mean, for instance, one of these guys, it was just a credit card fraud when he was a teenager and apparently, according to him at least, it was an accident, you know, but regardless, he pled down to a third degree with that particular judge, took that plea deal, served his probation, never got in trouble with the law ever again, became a cop, as a matter of fact. And so, you know, that's that. But it doesn't matter to the state of California. It doesn't matter to a lot of states, as a matter of fact. But I have never understood how in this country somebody could lose their rights to for life while at the same time, the court system, the judicial system says they're safe enough to be back out on the streets. If they've been released, they've done their time, their service, whatever it is, and their probation, and they've been released on the streets and they're safe enough to be around us in the general public, then they shouldn't have their rights restricted. That's just my own personal opinion where I stand on that. But again, it's nice to see a different judge view this under the light of the Constitution and in post-Bruin circumstances where the judge even said that the state has not proved that there's a historical precedent for something like this to even exist. So this Obama-appointed judge used Bruin in his decision, but it's just nice to see it come from somebody else. Absolutely love Judge Bonitz. I think everything that he does is pretty much great when it comes to this particular sphere. But it's nice to see other judges that are looking at the rule of law instead of their own personal agenda. So I wanted to share that with you guys. Thought it was fantastic. I do appreciate you guys watching. Please like, subscribe. You have a great day.

The State of California sued the ATF over it's "frames and receivers" rule and the judge sided with California. This has a lot of people confused. Why would the state challenge the rule since its in alignment with their ideals? Well, it's because California doesn't believe they went far enough.

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. So today, I've got one that's going to make you shake your head in disbelief. There are a lot of people that are confused here, but I'm sure even by the title, you're wondering what the hell is going on. Well, it's true. California and Gords sued the ATF over their frame and receiver Rule, and you're probably asking yourself why would they do that? What the ATF has done is pretty much in perfect alignment with what California and Gords wants, so what's going on here? Well, today I want to try and clear up some of that because the judge has just issued an order in this case, and it's got a lot of people asking what's going on. So let's talk about it.

Now, real quick before we get started, if you're not subscribed yet, consider hitting that subscribe button. We're really trying to get this Pro-Constitution message out there, and when you hit that subscribe button, that little bell notification, it really helps us do that. It's free, it only takes a second, but it really helps us out a lot. So in advance, I just want to say thank you for subscribing. Okay, so let's go and talk about the state of California vs. ATF.

Now, this can seem very confusing because on the surface, it just looks like the state of California is challenging the ATF on the frame and receiver Rule and on the APA (Administrative Procedures Act). People are wondering why would they do that because again, it seems like the state of California and the ATF are in pretty much perfect alignment here, so why would there be any type of challenge at all? Well, I'm sure you guys know by now what the frame and receiver rule is and what it bans. Basically, it stops people from sending out any type of kit that includes a jig or a template or anything that is milled enough to where it could be considered a frame or receiver. Right? If it's easy to convert, then the ATF basically considers it a frame or receiver. On the other hand, if it doesn't come with a jig or a template and it hasn't been milled out to a certain extent, then it's not considered a frame or receiver. And that's basically due to the fact that if it was considered a frame or receiver, that means that they could basically ban blocks of aluminum or chunks of plastic that haven't been converted at all. So again, there had to be some type of way to consider whether something is a frame or receiver or not, and that's where California comes in.

So, let's just take a quick look at this case and what they're saying here. Now, I should mention real quick that both parties, the state of California and the ATF, asked the judge for a summary judgment, and the judge actually granted both sides summary judgment in part. So we'll talk a little bit more about that too, but let's first get into why California is even attempting to challenge the ATF.

Okay, so what we're going to do is we're going to read directly from the judge's order, and this perfectly explains why California has challenged and essentially won its case against the ATF. So it says right here:

"The final rule also gives examples of what is and what is not a frame or receiver. Example one to paragraph C: 'frame or receiver: a frame or receiver parts kit containing partially completed disassembled Billet or blank of a frame or receiver that is sold distributed or possessed with a compatible jig or template is a frame or receiver as a person with online instructions and common hand tools may readily complete or assemble the frame or receiver parts to function as a frame receiver.' Now that was example one. If we move down to example four to paragraph C: 'not a receiver: a Billet or blank of an AR-15 variant receiver without critical interior areas having been indexed machined or formed that is not sold distributed or possessed with instructions jigs templates equipment or tools such that it may be readily completed is not a receiver.' Just below that is where the judge basically says that it's example number four to paragraph C that this entire lawsuit is about, where it says: 'as reflected by the party's briefs, the party's current dispute essentially boils down to example four and related determinations.'"

So basically, what it comes down to—and this is the easiest explanation possible—is that California actually sued the ATF to tell them that they didn't go far enough when it comes to example four of paragraph C. What is considered not a frame or receiver? California does not like that example. They believe that those things should still be considered frames or receivers and basically sued the ATF to have that part changed, to have that example changed. California wants a chunk of metal or a chunk of plastic on its own to be considered a frame or receiver, and so that's basically what this whole thing boils down to. They're telling the ATF, "Hey, you guys impose some gun control, that's great, we like that, but you didn't impose enough gun control. So, we're going to sue you." Now, like I said in the beginning, the judge actually granted a summary judgment really for both parties. So, they granted in part, denied in part for the plaintiffs, granted in part and denied in part for the defendants in this case. So, the plaintiffs in this case are going to be the state of California. So let's go and read what the judge's decision on this was because this could have a drastic impact on the ATF's final rule or what is supposed to be their final rule and what they're going to have to do about it.

So, it says here in conclusion:

"For the foregoing reason, the court hereby grants in part and denies in part defendant's motion for summary judgment and grants in part and denies in part plaintiff's motion for a summary judgment. The court rejects plaintiff's challenge to ATF's use of the8 in measurement with respect to the Fire Control cavity. However, the court agrees with the plaintiffs that ATF's actions related to example four are arbitrary and capricious in failing to take into account all eight factors related to the term readily assessment, in particular time, and failing to address the impact of easily availability of jigs, tools, and sources other than from the seller distributor of the incomplete receiver. The court therefore declares one subsection of the final rule, example 4, and related agency actions to be unlawful and enjoins defendants from enforcing them, vacates one subsection of the final rule, example 4, and related agency actions, and remands to ATF for further proceedings consistent with the court's opinion."

So basically what the judge said there is that yes, he is going to grant and deny in part for both parties, but specifically for the State of California, he has declared that that example four is unlawful. So where the ATF says that these are not considered frames or receivers because they don't come with all these different things, the judge says that that now is unlawful. So he enjoined that, that is no longer enforceable by the ATF, and basically that means that as of right now, there is no example of what is not considered one of those parts. There's no example. Example four has been deemed unlawful by this judge, and so he remanded that back to the ATF to basically redo example four of what is not considered. So now, the ATF, at least if this stands, and I'm sure the ATF will appeal it, but if this stands, the ATF is going to have to rewrite that part of what is not considered. That's basically what is at hand here.

The state of California and the agency both won, but the state of California won the biggest. They basically forced the ATF to come up with even more gun control. It's hard to fathom that the ATF would come out with this final rule, and somebody out there said, "Hey, look, that's not enough, you haven't gone far enough, we're going to challenge you to make it even worse." But that's what you get out of California. That's what you get out of these politicians who have basically looked at every portion of what they're doing and said, "We can make it worse." People of the State of California, the politicians of the State of California, we think that it should be worse, and that's what we want you to do. And unfortunately, the judges in that state were on their side and said the same thing and said, "Hey, make it worse." And so they're forcing the ATF to do just that.

So anyway, I wanted to share that with you, try to clear up some of the confusion. It's all about what's not considered in this case. This is a doozy, let me tell you. And what the ATF's going to do from here, I'm not sure, but we're going to stay on top of it. Again, this is California vs. ATF. Thank you very much for watching, I really do appreciate it. Please like, subscribe. You guys have a great day.

The 2024 California Legislative Session is proving to be just what we've seen in the past with multiple new bills that would inevitably infringe on the rights of the citizens of California. The latest is AB3067

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. Sorry again about the voice, I'm still feeling under the weather, but California just will not let me rest. This 2024 session is proving to be pretty much just like the rest, where California lawmakers are coming up with just absolutely ridiculous new and creative ways to force gun control on the people of that state. The one that we're going to be talking about today is got to be one of the lowest, snake in the grass, backdoor bills that I have seen yet, and the chances of this one passing are extremely high, so you're going to want to pay attention. Let's talk about it now.

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 brokerage 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 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 was 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 "copperjacket".

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here. Like I said before, this legislative session is turning out to be just like every single one in the past where they come up with new and creative stuff. You guys might remember the video I made last week talking about the new bill that would force annual registration on every single firearm in the state of California, and again, that's every year, including fees, and it's just a huge mess. If you guys haven't seen that video, I'll link that video down below, but I believe it's just the last video because I've been sick. Regardless, that was a huge one that's one we're going to be following pretty closely. This one is it kind of works on the same level except it's a more backdoor and sneaky way of doing it, creating a registry and kind of really peering into your house. So this is a way for California to see now into your home.

So there's a brand new bill, and this bill, which was introduced by Assembly Member Gibson, is AB 367. Okay, so let's go and break this down a little bit before we dive into the bill which will give us a little bit more detail, but essentially what this bill does is the state of California will be forcing insurance companies to spy on you for them and to let them know what you own, where it is, how you have it stored, everything about it. So what we have here is a bill that says to insurance companies, whether they provide property insurance, renters insurance, or homeowners insurance, to add several questions to your policy, and those questions all have to do with your firearms: what you own, how you store them, where you have them, what they are, all that stuff right there. And then once you answer those questions and send it back to your insurer, that information, instead of just staying with your insurer, is now going to be sent to the state of California. So the state of California will know absolutely everything about each homeowner, each property owner, everybody who has an apartment with renters insurance, all of that stuff is going to be going to the state if this bill passes.

Now you might think to yourself, "I'm just not going to fill that information out, they don't need to know about any of that stuff, right?" Well, there's a pretty good chance that if you don't fill that out, guess what's going to happen if something bad happens, right? Let's say that there's a fire, consumes everything, then the investigator comes out later on, notices that you have a bunch of stuff that you didn't put down on there, right? Well, that could be a violation of your policy and all of a sudden they decide not to cover it. It's a total loss, you still owe on it but they're not going to cover it because you said you didn't have those when in fact you did. There's a lot going on here and there's ways that they can try and force people to do it, but for more information let's just dive into the bill itself.

Now try and keep in mind as I've read this multiple times, the one thing that I'm taking away here is that it is for the purpose of creating another registry and this time the registry will be even more detailed because it'll say exactly how you have it and where you keep it and stuff like that so they can hold you accountable later on and like we've all said for decades now registration does lead to confiscation so there is no good purpose for this other than more information goes to the state of California.

So let's just go ahead and read this from the legislative council digest. This bill would require an insurer by January 1st, 2026 to include questions on an application for homeowners or renters insurance seeking specified information regarding the presence and storage of any firearms kept in the household, accessories, structures, or vehicles kept on the property subject to any applicable insurance policy. This bill would require an insurer to annually report this information to the Department of Justice and the legislature beginning on January 1st, 2027, and would prohibit the inclusion of confidential identifying information on the report. The people of the State of California do enact as follows: section 12086 is added to the insurance code to read as follows: In addition to existing regulations and applications for homeowners or renters insurance, insurance shall include questions regarding all of the following: whether there are firearms kept in the household including any accessory structures and if so, how many; whether the firearm, if any, is stored in a locked container in the home including any accessory structures while not in use; the number of firearms kept in a vehicle located on the property such subject to the applicable insurance policy and if any, whether they are stored securely in a locked container while not in use.

An insurer shall update the contents of their applications for homeowners or renters insurance to include the questions regarding the presence, storage, and number of firearms by January 1st, 2026. An insurer shall annually report the information gathered from the questions regarding the presence, storage, and number to the Department of Justice and to the legislature beginning on January 1st, 2027. And it basically continues on with what we've already read. For the purposes of this section, "locked container" has the same meaning as in section 16850 of the penal code - basically, it's got to be a California approved container.

Now, I'm sure you noticed in there that it says this is not supposed to provide any personal identifying information. Well, okay, let's just say for the sake of argument that that actually doesn't happen. I don't believe it, but let's just say for the sake of argument that that doesn't happen. They don't send any personal identifying information up there. But obviously, they're going to send it up there with an address, right? You want to know what the property is, the property here at 0000 whatever way is, has got this, they have this many units, there's this much stuff there, and they send it on up. Well, it doesn't take much to say on January 1st of 2027, so and so lived here on that day. Connecting the dots is as simple as a quick search, especially for the state, right? So matching names up with property insurance and stuff like that isn't hard at all. Not to mention, California gives out stuff to research groups, colleges, universities, they've accidentally leaked them online a couple times, and so this is not something that I would trust to stay with.

But while they have one bill that's completely open and in your face and says, "Hey look, we're going to require you to register them every single year," this bill takes an extra step into your home and says, "Where are they? Are they in your vehicle? Are they in your house? Are they in a locked container? How many locked containers do you have?" I mean, this really takes that extra step into your private property, right into your private business, which I mean, it's all your private business. What I even purchase is none of their business, what store I'm at at the moment is none of their business, but you know, just given the California basically requires a background check for everything right now, they already have that information. But taking it a step further and moving it into your home is a step that I just absolutely despise. I mean, it's just disgusting. It's just disgusting.

But that's the problem with California, is you have all of these politicians who want to try and pander to their base to say that they did something, and since so many somethings have been done in that state, there's no somethings left. So they have to come up with these ultra-creative ways that make absolutely no sense to try and come up with a new something. And that's kind of what we have here. It's just, it's getting out of control. It makes you wonder every single year, how could they possibly come up with anything new? There are already more than 100 laws in this specific sphere in the state of California, and I guarantee you they'll find ways to make more.

So, I wanted to let you guys know about that. It's just another bill introduced in this state, and I'm sure we're going to see more throughout this legislative session. I will bring those to you. If you haven't done so already, hit that little alarm bell that'll let you know when new videos come out, and if you haven't done so, you know, hit that subscribe button. I really appreciate it. Thank you all very much for watching. Have a great day.

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.

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.

After an injunction and immediate "stay" by Federal District Court Judge Roger Benitez California appealed to continue the stay. Since then the case of Miller v Bonta has been in the hands of the 9th Circuit. This case which has seen delay after delay is set for oral arguments and California has filed its reply brief.

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. So today, I've got an update for you in one of the most infamous cases that we really have going on right now in the entire Western portion of this country, which is Miller v. Bon, the case that challenges California's ban on so-called assault weapons. This case has been going on for years now. We've seen multiple injunctions, multiple appeals, multiple stays, and it currently sits before the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. We've been waiting on movement in this case since a little bit late last year, and today we have that movement. So let's talk about what's going on.

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here. One thing I find interesting, especially with these huge cases like Miller, like Duncan, is that when you have to wait two or three months for something to happen, it could feel like two or three years. And that's when people start to write and say, "Hey, have you heard anything new? I keep checking and I don't see anything new happening with Miller." Well, one thing you have to remember is that the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is very good at delaying things, pushing things out as long as possible so that they don't have to deal with it. I mean, they've pretty much become the experts at that. As a matter of fact, oral arguments were supposed to be heard in Miller in December, and now here we are in January, and you know that that's how they do things, right? They'll continue to push them out, so delays just continue to happen.

Now, with that being said, we have an update on a very important date that's coming up just at the end of next week on January 24th, 2024. And that is that we finally get oral arguments in front of the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Miller v. Bon. But the important update is that we now have the reply brief from the state of California, which sort of outlines their argument as to why they feel like this ban should be held up. And their arguments are as far out there as you could possibly imagine. This should be a slam dunk if it was pretty much any other court that valued the rule of law or valued the Constitution. This would be an absolute slam dunk. But since we're dealing with the ninth circuit, you just never know which way it's going to go. The ninth circuit 99% of the time sides with California.

Now, I should note that these oral arguments pertain to Judge BZ's injunction. If you remember, he placed an injunction against enforcement of that law, but he placed a stay on his own injunction until California had time to appeal that injunction. So these oral arguments have to do with Judge Bona's injunction and whether or not the ninth circuit is going to extend the stay or they're going to allow the injunction to actually take effect. So that's what these oral arguments are about. I just wanted to clarify that because this is why it's so important. If the ninth circuit actually does decide that they're going to allow the injunction to take effect, then it's freedom back in California, right? That would be massive. But obviously, we know that we're fighting an uphill battle here, and so it's possible that they could decide to extend the stay, well, really permanently until the end of the case. So that's why this is so important.

So let's go and take a look at their reply brief real quick so you guys can see their argument. Now, before I even read the entire brief, which I did a couple of times just to kind of understand where they're coming from, this table of contents just had me. It says, "Two, California's restrictions on challenge categories are consistent with this nation's historical tradition." Now, I'm not a historian or an attorney. I don't know how many of you out there are attorneys or historians, but even I know that that is an absolutely false statement. And they kind of admit that they might be wrong here just in looking at their own example. They admit they might be wrong where it says, "Even if the Second Amendment presumptively protects these quote-unquote 'assault weapons,' a more nuanced approach would apply." And then, "California's restrictions are consistent with this historical tradition of regulating especially dangerous weapons."

Okay, so what we're going to do is we're going to scroll down to one of their arguments, an argument that the plaintiffs can expect to hear when they have their oral arguments on the 24th. So this is kind of like a study document for the plaintiffs here. But it says, "Arms. California does not believe that these are arms. They do not believe that they are protected by the Constitution." And so this is their argument for that, and it's just so wild and so out there. So it says here, "At each step of their analysis, plaintiffs advance broad arguments about quote-unquote 'assault weapons' generally, instead of addressing the particular characteristics of each separate category of weapon challenged in their complaint." So again, this is where California, in the past, brings up characteristics, not the overall function or what it does or how similar it is to something else that doesn't have a specific feature that California doesn't like. You know, which changes absolutely nothing about it, but that's where they bring up the characteristics again.

Now it says, "They begin by asserting that there can be no question whatsoever that the firearms banned by California are arms. And just based on the definition of arms back in 1791 when the Second Amendment was ratified, you and I know that to be true. They are arms and should be protected, no doubt. Semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns generally constitute bearable offensive weapons. But plaintiffs' broad assertion fails to account for the differences between the specific categories prohibited by California and particularly the fact that some categories prohibit only the use of the accessory that can easily be added to or removed from the weapon." As a matter of text and history, there is a clear distinction between arms and accoutrements. So California's kind of backed into a corner here, and what I find is that they're contradicting themselves.

So in one instance, they're saying that these things aren't protected by the Constitution because they're more apt for military service, right? So they're not supposed to be for the average citizen, therefore, they're not protected by the Constitution, even though I find that to be absolutely ridiculous as well. But they're citing Supreme Court precedent, the NFA, and stuff like that to say that if there's something that is for the military, then the common civilian shouldn't be allowed to have it. And then, on the other hand, they're saying that they're not actually banning anything, right? They're not banning the arm itself because really what they're banning are the use of the accessories. That's what they're going after. And so, are you banning it, or are you not? Are you just going after the, as you call it, accoutrements, or are you going after the arm itself? Because in two different arguments, you kind of say two different things. Which one is it? You don't even have a clear understanding of what your own law is.

So this is what we have to look forward to January 24th, end of next week. We're looking at oral arguments in this case. We now have California's arguments. We know that California is kind of grasping for straws here, but the plaintiffs are still going to have to have some type of response for what California says. Now, the ninth circuit is going to, obviously, they're going to take whatever time they need. I don't know if they have a specific timeline to decide whether or not to grant or uphold the injunction that was put in place by Judge BZ or to grant California's request for an extended stay. I don't know what's going to happen and how long that's going to take, but at least now the ball is rolling. Oral arguments will be finished, and it's in the hands of the ninth circuit after that. And we're just going to have to wait to see what they come up with.

Now, like I said, they're kind of in the back pocket of California. We know that things don't always look really good. I don't think that the judges that are going to be on this panel are very friendly to us. So that's going to be another negative as well. But we'll see what happens, and I will keep you guys up to date as to any of the changes that happen in this case because, again, in my opinion, between Duncan and Miller, these are two of the most important cases in the western part of the country right now. Because being under the ninth circuit, this would have a direct effect on Oregon. It would have an effect on Washington. I mean, this would have an effect on everything under the jurisdiction of the ninth circuit, and a lot of these West Coast states are the ones that have these same or similar bans. So this would have a really big effect if we end up getting the win in the end on this one. I think it's going to go back up to the Supreme Court. But we'll see what happens, and again, I'll keep you guys up to date. I want to thank you all very much for watching. I really do appreciate it. Please like, subscribe. You guys have a great day.

The stay placed on an injunction baring enforcement of the "sensitive locations" aspect of Californias SB2 has been dissolved. The 9th circuit court of appeals merits panel has not only dissolved the administrative stay but it also denied a stay moving forward, allowing the injunction to be in full effect.

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. So, huge breaking news out of the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. I was out in the desert today testing out some new PewDie pews for review. When I got home, I saw this massive news: the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the stay, the administrative stay that was stopping the injunction on sensitive places. So, the stay is gone, the injunction is in. Let's talk about it.

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here because this is a pretty big deal. You don't usually get good news from the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals like this when it comes to Second Amendment-related cases. But if you remember back in December, a federal district court judge, Judge Carney, placed an injunction against enforcement of a majority of the sensitive locations that are listed in SB2. SB2 is California's bruneian response bill. It basically banned carrying just about everywhere in the state of California and also added a bunch of other regulations, rules, and fees. With that injunction, it meant that the status quo can remain in effect. That means that people who were carrying in the same place as before would be able to remain carrying in those same places after the New Year.

The ninth Circuit Court of Appeals motion panel placed an administrative stay against that injunction, meaning that all of those new sensitive places in SB2 would actually go into effect January 1st, and they did. Now, they sent it down to the motions panel, panel sent it down to a merits panel. Now, that merits panel is the one that just overturned that administrative stay and denied California's motion for a stay pending appeal. So basically, the stay is gone, they denied the stay, they overturned the administrative stay. Judge Carney's injunction is now in full effect. That means that if you were able to carry somewhere prior to January 1st, you can carry there again today.

Okay, so let's go and take a look at the court filing right here. Now, this is just filed today, January 6, 2024, and it is in the case of Carolo v. Bon, which is the FPC case, and May v. Bon. Now, we're going to go ahead and just push right to page two to the part that I think is most relevant where it says the administrative stay previously entered gives a docket number is dissolved. So the previous administrative stay is gone. The emergency motion under circuit rule 27-3 for a stay pending appeal and for an interim administrative stay is denied. That's it. The stays are gone. The stays are over pending further order of the Court. Appell's motion for reconsideration or clarification of the Court's order of December 30th, 2023, is denied as moot. The existing brief schedules remain in effect.

Now, we can get into all the legal mumbo-jumbo, talk about the where, the why, and the when, but I don't think anybody really cares about that. I think what people care about is that now they can go and they can leave their house and they can go about their daily life and their business and carry like normal, you know, the way that they should be able to carry without having to see a sign in a window or avoid a specific sidewalk or avoid a specific parking lot or not being able to go into a restaurant because that restaurant just happens to serve some type of alcohol. I mean, that's the whole point of getting your permit was so that you could protect yourself once you leave the home.

But the way that California had it was the moment you left your home, you had to, again, disarm yourself pretty much anywhere else that you went. So it is fantastic to see that the injunction is now in place. It is barring enforcement of the sensitive locations aspect of SB2. Again, that's fantastic. The case continues. That's why they said that there's still some dates to come and, you know, the remaining schedule remains the same following this because the case is still yet to come. It's just that California asked for an emergency stay. They granted them an administrative stay, and then the merits panel was supposed to decide whether or not to actually grant or deny that administrative or the emergency stay. Either way, the stay was denied. Administrative stay was denied. A stay pending appeal, a stay for the rest of the freaking case was denied. So basically, we have an injunction that's going to hold up now until this case is over or something else crazy happens and the ninth circuit plays some more games.

But I think that's fantastic news, so the merits panel has sided with us, and we move on from here, hopefully to completely overturn SB2. Obviously, right now, they're kind of hyper-focused. The FPC and these other cases are kind of hyper-focused on getting rid of the sensitive locations first, and then after that, obviously, the rest of the bill can be contended with because there's a lot going on with SB2. It was a pretty big bill and a very broad bill as well. But I just wanted to share that good news with you. If you're somebody who had a permit in California or you were somebody who was maybe going through the permit process or you were somebody who is up for renewal, just know that your permit is now good to go. It's your permit's good.

I know it's just kind of flying off the cuff here a little bit, but I'm kind of excited. I was not expecting this, to be honest with you. I don't think a lot of other people were either, so that is the breaking news for your Saturday. I want to thank you all very much for watching. If you haven't done so already, please hit that subscribe button, that little bell notification, and a thumbs up as always appreciated. Have a good one.

With only days left before Illinois and their registration time period ends for PICA, we take a look at the compliance data to see where we stand with just a few days left. Is it still mass noncompliance or have people begun to register?

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. So, it's time to check back in on Illinois. We're just days away now from the close of the registration period for the so-called Protect Illinois Communities Act. Up until this point, it has been mass non-compliant. The number of people who have actually registered and the number of things registered versus the numbers that we think are actually in the state have been absolutely minuscule. It's been really incredible to watch. So, we're going to check back in today, see what the numbers look like again just days away from registration closing. So, let's get to it.

I want to start off today's video by just saying thank you all so much for 10 and a half years of support. We just hit 500,000 subscribers, which is an incredible milestone. Obviously, couldn't have done any of it without you guys supporting 2A news and reviews for this long length of time. It's been an incredible roller coaster, and I love having you guys with me. I do not take this for granted. So again, I just wanted to say thank you all very much for the support.

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here. We'll take a look at the data in just a second, but I have been making videos about this now for the past six or seven weeks, and it has been really impressive to see how many people have just decided to say, "Look, I'm not going to comply. I am not going to follow unconstitutional laws," and have chosen not to register. Now, under the so-called Protect Illinois Communities Act, there are several different things that the state of Illinois is requiring people to register before December 31st of 2023—those items include certain firearms, ammunition, accessories, and so forth.

Now, there are over 2.4 million FOID card holders in the state of Illinois (that's your Firearm Owner Identification Card). Given the fact that it's a very broad bill, it's very wide-ranging, and the number of things that need to be registered is so huge, you would expect that a majority of those FOID card holders would have something that would need to be registered. So, the number of people that should have registered by now should at least be in the hundreds of thousands, if not 1 million plus. I mean, if you just consider that only half of the FOID card holders have at least one of these items, you'd be looking at 1.2 million people registering, right?

Well, when I made my first video about this nearly seven weeks ago, I think it was only like 6,000 people. So, what do the numbers look like now today, again just days before the close of registration? Well, just take a look at the data directly from the Illinois state government. So, we could see the numbers right here. It says the "Protect Illinois's Communities Act Statistics Number of individuals completing a disclosure," and that's up until today, December 27th. We have a total of 15,164. Now, that's quite a few people, but in the grand scheme of things, that is virtually nothing. Total disclosures now, like I said before, there are certain things that need to be registered or that the state is requiring people to register. It's not just one thing, so somebody could have multiples, right? So, we have 15,164 people with a total disclosure number of 51,978.

Now, again, that does seem like a much bigger number, but it's still in the grand scheme of things extremely small. So, it breaks it down for us here. We have firearms disclosures at 3,365, accessory disclosures at 18,632, and ammunition disclosures at 281. Okay, so let's just break that down into percentages. Okay, so we have 15,164 people that have gone through the registration process or have completed the process up until this point. Now, if we just say that all 2.4 million FOID card holders have something that needs to be registered, then you're looking at less than 1% of the people who need to register something have actually done it. It's actually 6/10 of 1%, so 0.6% have actually registered.

Now, obviously, that doesn't seem like a very realistic number. So, let's cut that in half. Let's say 1.2 million, right? You're only looking at 1.2% total compliance if we cut that FOID card number completely in half. So again, 1.2 million, 15,164, that is 1.2% compliance, just over 1% compliance, which is incredible to me. Now, let's just cut it down even more. Let's just say for argument's sake that we cut that down another 50% and say that out of the 2.4 million FOID card holders in the state, only 600,000 of those actually have something that needs to be registered. Well, if we cut it down that far, we're still barely over 2%, under 2 and a half%. It comes out to 2.4%. If the number is only 600,000 out of that 2.4 million, so even as we break down the statistics to try and make it work better for them, right, for the state, for the governor, for everybody who wanted this to work, even if we break it down all that far, and we can keep going by 50% and cut it down even further, but just looking at a statistical anomaly of 600,000, which I think the number would actually be higher than that, but if we took a look at 600,000, and we're still only at 2%, which means that mass non-compliance is still happening in the state of Illinois. And again, that's with the clock ticking down. I mean, we are just about at midnight here with just a couple more full days to go.

Now, just based on the text of the Second Amendment alone, without even needing to go into any historical analogues or traditions, we can see that this is unconstitutional. But we haven't gotten any help from the courts. We haven't gotten any help with the district court level, no help at the appellate court level. We didn't get any help at the Supreme Court. I mean, there has been no help for the people of Illinois. So, this law, this PLaw, is set to take effect, and it's going to be in full effect, and registration is going to be closed in just a matter of days. So again, without any help from the court system, I'm not really sure where to go from here, other than a full petition to the entire Supreme Court to try and get this thing overturned. It's going to take full effect. It's the registration is going to be closed. We already know that that's going to happen because the Seventh Circuit basically said that these things are not protected by the Second Amendment. It allowed the state to continue pushing these unconstitutional laws. The only way to override that is going to be the Supreme Court or some type of decision in California or New York or Washington or any of these other states that have lawsuits moving forward as well to combat what is happening in their state that's very similar to what's going on in Illinois.

Now, one thing I could tell you from experience, if you live in Illinois, these 2A rights groups don't just give up because they didn't get a preliminary injunction. They didn't get their injunction. They don't just simply roll over, and that's the end of that. They will take this all the way to the Supreme Court. They will take it to the highest court in the land. We've seen where the court stands on this issue, whether or not they want to take this issue up. That's probably going to be our biggest challenge, especially with multiple lawsuits across the country. There could be one that they prefer over another. But the thing is, this is not over. Okay, so even though it seems all doom and gloom, and it's going to take effect, and there's going to be all these restrictions, constitutional restrictions on your rights, it's not the end. And you have to try and keep your chin up and keep up the fight.

So, I just wanted to give you guys that data, those stats. They kind of make me feel good that people still believe in the rule of law and people are still willing to fight back against unconstitutional tyranny, which is exactly what it is. And people of Illinois are doing that right now. And in my opinion, again, I think that's phenomenal. So 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.