Every year in California there are a dozen or more new gun control bills that become law. Trying to keep up with all of them I missed a few very important ones, passed and signed, set to take effect. Today I cover a couple of those missed.

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. Every year, on average, we see a dozen or more new gun control bills get passed and signed in the state of California. They're always trying to outdo themselves, always trying to come up with something new to make their constituents in the big cities happy. Last year was no different, except I missed a few of the new bills, and the ones I missed are actually designed to get you into trouble. These are particularly bad ones, and they've already passed and are set to take effect. Today, we're going to talk about these new bills and what they're designed to do, so pay attention.

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

Let's dive right into this because it's something that everyone across the country needs to know about. What happens in California tends to spread to other states. If you live in another blue state like Illinois or New York, you could see this coming your way. The first bill we're going to discuss is AB 574. Let me put this up on the screen so we can read it together.

AB 574 was signed into law in 2023 and takes effect on March 1, 2025. It mandates that the register or record of sale includes an acknowledgment by the purchaser or transferee that they have, within the last 30 days, confirmed possession of every firearm they own or possess. Now, that's just the first one. We'll talk about the other one in a second, but first, I want to explain why this is a sneaky way of getting you to incriminate yourself.

Essentially, what they're trying to get you to do is fill out an affidavit stating that you have checked within the last 30 days and are aware of the location of everything you own or possess. Your name is right at the bottom of this affidavit. I think this adds to the whole lost or stolen reporting issue because a lot of people aren't reporting things lost or stolen due to the small window allowed, which causes fear of getting into trouble for late reporting. So, people end up not reporting at all. You basically sign this affidavit saying you've checked everything within the last 30 days. If something shows up somewhere, they have that affidavit saying you checked on it and should know where it is, meaning you are clearly lying. Guess who gets caught up in all that?

People may not know about it or may just go along with it even if they haven't checked. Some people have had things taken without even knowing they're gone, but just want to speed up the transaction and sign the statement. Now, they have that on record every time you get something new. So, the whole time period is covered where you said you know where it is, but if it shows up somewhere, you've contradicted yourself. This could lead to issues like lying on a government document, among other things, and could wrap you up for a long time for something as simple as this.

The next bill, AB 725, sort of correlates with the first one and takes effect after the first effective date. Starting July 1, 2026, it expands the definition of a firearm to include a frame or receiver, including both completed frames or receivers or precursor parts, in the provisions that require a person to report anything lost or stolen to law enforcement. This expands the number of things that need to be reported within California's short window.

With a March 2025 start date on the first law, you'll need to check everything you own. Then, with the July 2026 start date on the next law, you'll have to check more things, including precursor parts. For someone who owns only a few items, this might not seem like much, but for someone like me, it's a lot to keep track of. These two laws essentially piggyback on each other, creating a big "gotcha" scheme by expanding what needs to be reported as lost or stolen while requiring you to sign an affidavit stating you've checked everything.

A lot of people won't keep track of all these changes, which makes it easy to get caught up in this scheme. It's important to be aware of these laws and prepare for them. California likely won't stop here and may reclassify more items to fall under these new definitions. Tomorrow, I'll cover another new law that could extend waiting periods from 10 days to 30 days or more. I missed these laws throughout the year with all the national and state-level changes, but felt it was important to bring them to your attention.

Thank you all very much for watching. I really appreciate it. Please like, subscribe if you haven't already, and hit that little alarm bell to be notified when new videos come out. Have a great day.

A Federal District Court Judge in New York has upheld one of the worst new laws in the state. This law which is very similar to one in California was upheld by the Judge who cited a 1756 law on Catholics as a historical analog.

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. So, this is a very important video today because a federal judge has just upheld one of the most unconstitutional and anti-second Amendment laws in the entire state of New York. As a matter of fact, it's nearly identical to an existing law they have in the state of California. It seems like all of the activist judges since Bruin have just wormed their way out of the woodwork and they're really showing their true colors.

So, let's talk about what just happened. Now, real quick before we get started, if you're like me and you believe firmly in defending yourself and your loved ones whether you're in the home or outside the home, you need to do what I did and sign up for attorneys on retainer. I mean, let's face it, not all self-defense incidents are clear-cut. If there's even a small question about whether or not what you did is right, there's a good chance that you're going to end up in handcuffs and taken to jail. You're going to need somebody that's going to be there for you to defend you, and that doesn't come from some pencil pusher in an insurance company. You need attorneys on retainer. If an incident pops up, you call attorneys on retainer. An attorney giving you instant client privilege will pick up the phone, they will guide you through things, they will be there to represent you, and they will take care of you all the way through court. Now, if you're interested in attorneys on retainer, go ahead and check out the link down in the description box. There's also a discount code which is cjtv that'll save you 50 bucks off sign up.

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here. So, a federal judge, Judge Grassy—I'm not sure if I'm pronouncing that correctly, and to be honest with you, I don't care—a judge that would uphold a law like this for the reasons that this judge decided to uphold this law does not deserve my respect or your respect. Regardless, a federal judge in the state of New York has decided to uphold the ammunition background check law in that state, the one that's been such a massive failure, a huge problem with a lot of false positives. Plenty of people have been denied, plenty of people have been delayed. I mean, these people are good law-abiding citizens who have never done anything wrong and they're not able to practice their Second Amendment rights because of that system, which is just an absolute mess, just like it was when it rolled out in the state of California.

Well, you want to know why this judge upheld this law? I got to read this to you because honestly, it's close to unbelievable. It is close to unbelievable, and if you're Catholic, get ready for this one. Okay, so this is directly from the judge's order, and remember, this is post Bruin, and the judge actually did say that ammunition is protected by the Second Amendment. Therefore, they have to look at the nation's history and traditions of firearm regulations in order to find some type of analog that is comparable to today's law in order for it to be legal, in order for it to be upheld. So, the judge writes this:

"The government offers several historical examples of laws that were enacted to disarm dangerous individuals, but the court will discuss only one of the many analogues offered. In colonial Virginia, the legislature dictated that no Catholics shall or may have or keep in his house or elsewhere or in the possession of any other person to his use or at his disposition any arms, weapons, gunpowder, or ammunition because it was determined that it is dangerous at this time to permit Catholics to be armed."

I mean, it's directly from his order. That's the historical analog that he used to uphold New York's law. Okay, so let's go and unpack this absolutely nutty historic analog that the judge is leaning on here. There's so many problems with it, it's incredible that he decided to even use it.

So, first off, again, we're post Bruin. The Supreme Court said that we're supposed to look at this nation's history and traditions of firearm regulation from the ratification of the Second Amendment in 1791, maybe up until the Reconstruction Era of the 1860s. Okay, so that's our timeframe. That's the time period that the lower courts are supposed to look at. This number one is a law from the 1750s. It is well outside of the timeframe that the courts are supposed to look at when considering historical analogues. So, that sort of invalidates this law altogether. But if you want to go a little bit further, we can definitely do that.

Number one, this is also a law that didn't last very long. This is not a longstanding tradition and some type of historical tradition that we can lean on to say that, hey, look, this is something that has existed in our country since the ratification. We can't do that because see, this law didn't even exist for that long. It was a short-lived law that specifically just targeted Catholics and had nothing to do with about them being dangerous and had to do with the religious problems that existed for a hundred years prior to that, that goes all the way back to England. Okay, so this is something that could be traced back to, you know, kings and problems that they had with, you know, their subjects. I mean, we're talking about the colonies preamer here. So, this is not only outside of the purview but it just did not hold up in any way, shape, or form.

Now, you're probably asking yourself if the judge was presented with so many historical analogues, why would he just choose this one which is essentially invalid to begin with? And that's because the other historical analogues provided by the state were even further off than this one. I mean, they were almost not analogous at all, just like this one isn't really. I mean, this one is not analogous to today's law. But what the judge did is he decided to oversimplify things.

And when I say oversimplify, I mean oversimplify to the millionth degree. Basically, what he's saying is this particular law, which was very short standing, banned powder and ammunition and stuff from dangerous people. And so since that was the case, he says, well, you know, dangerous people weren't allowed to have those things, and therefore we should allow New York's background check scheme to stand. I mean, it doesn't make sense to me. It probably doesn't make sense to you. But this guy tried to tie it in a nice little bow. It just doesn't hold up. It doesn't work out. Nevertheless, the judge decided to uphold the law anyway.

And if that historical analogue is the best you have, you are grasping for some serious straws there because it's not even close. This is what has happened post Bruin. If you guys remember when Bruin first came down, there was this big uproar from people saying this is going to change everything. This is—they're illegitimate, the Supreme Court, and what they're doing is tearing down all of our decades of work that we've done in our progress for safety and so forth, right? You remember, everybody was up in arms. You had all the different governors from all the different states that were just absolutely—they could not believe what the Supreme Court had just done. Now, all of a sudden, we have all these judges that are coming out of the waterworks to say, hey, no worries, we can find some type of comparison in history for just about anything. Twist them to make them work for us, and guess what? All of a sudden, all of these things are perfectly fine under Bruin anyway.

I could go on, but essentially what I'm trying to say here is that this is not a judge upholding the rule of law. This is activism, pure and simple. And when you have federal judges who are more concerned with their own personal agenda or the agenda that they're affiliated with rather than the rule of law, this is what happens. And we're going to continue to see this as they twist our nation's history and tradition to meet their agenda. So, I wanted to let you guys know about that. Obviously, there's going to be appeals. This is going to continue to go on. The case in California is going to continue to go on. It'll probably end up at the Supreme Court regardless. The law stands in New York as of today. So, I want to let you guys know about that. I want to thank you all very much for watching. I really do appreciate it. All you Patriots out there are fantastic. You guys have a great day.

We got a big win in the state of California today when a major bill, AB3067 was amended to remove nearly all original language that would have forced rental and homeowner insurance companies to report on you to the state.

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. I would love to see the sad faces of the California legislature right now, knowing that they can't force another unconstitutional gun control law on the people of the State of California. We had a big victory earlier today, and I want to talk to you guys about it, so let's get to it.

Now, real quick, if you're one of those lucky people in the state of California that already has a carry permit or maybe you're now able to get your first Carry Permit, you need to become a member of Attorneys on Retainer. Attorneys on Retainer is not like others; they are actual attorneys. So if you find yourself in a self-defense situation where it might be questionable, you call the number on the back of that card, and they will be there to defend you. An attorney will pick up the phone. I mean, let's face it, not all of us can afford to retain an attorney, but even if you can, that doesn't mean you'll be able to afford that attorney to represent you throughout the entire case. Attorneys on Retainer is absolutely priceless and the best peace of mind that you can have. There'll be a link down below to Attorneys on Retainer. If you use the code CJTV, that'll save you 50 bucks at sign-up for an individual plan and 25 bucks at sign-up for a family plan. So again, check out that link down below.

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here because this is pretty exciting. In fact, I believe this is the second win that we've had like this in the state of California in just the last month alone. If you guys watch this channel fairly regularly, you know that we've talked about this in the past. Basically, what California is trying to do is they were trying to have renters insurance and homeowners insurance companies spy on firearm owners for them. So if you rented a home or apartment and had renters insurance or owned a home with homeowners insurance, you would have to include any firearms you owned inside the home, where you kept those firearms, how you stored them, even if they were in your vehicle. You had to put all that information on your renters or homeowners insurance agreement, and then that information would be transmitted so that California could see everything you had, where you had it, and how you stored it. It was like they were de facto spying on you for the State of California.

Now, the bill that we're talking about today that would have allowed California to have all that information was AB 3067. Now, I thought this had a really good chance of passing. I thought this is exactly what they've been looking for; it's going to pass, Governor's going to sign it. But it turns out it's done. This bill is over with, and I think it's because there's been a mass exodus of insurance companies out of the state of California. Policies are too expensive to cover; the prices are too high. There's been a huge issue with insurance in the state of California, and I just don't think that they wanted to mess with that anymore.

So, what happened? Well, California does what it does best. They took the bill, they completely gutted all the language out of it, and then replaced it with something completely different. This is what the bill looked like originally. It 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. The bill would require an insurer to annually report this information to the Department of Insurance and the legislature beginning on January 1st, 2027, and would prohibit the inclusion of confidential identifying information in the report. That's what it looked like in the very beginning.

Now, the entire thing has been stricken. I mean, it's completely gone. All of that language about firearms has been taken out of the bill. So if you're asking yourself, what is the bill about now? Well, yeah, it's completely on the opposite end of the spectrum. The bill now, still AB 3067 as amended, is about interscholastic athletics in the state of California, not about its original intent.

What really surprises me about this is usually how it works, but in the complete opposite direction. It would normally start off as interscholastic sports, make it through the entire process, get voted on by committee, and do everything it needs to do. Then that interscholastic sports language would get removed from the bill, and then the original text would be placed in the bill, and then it would move forward. That's usually how they do things in California because they know what they're doing is unconstitutional. It's the only way to make it go through. This time it actually worked in our favor.

But if you guys remember that video that I did originally on this, and I know that there were a lot of people that were pretty upset about it, you don't have to worry about it anymore. That bill is gone; the language is gone. Well, the bill still exists, but it has absolutely nothing to do with what we originally talked about, so essentially, it's gone. Now, I wanted to share that with you because any win in the state of California, regardless of why or how it happened, is a big win. This is another one that will not be on the books, that will not be on people's renters or homeowners insurance policies that they'll have to fill out. This one is done. Again, it's important that you guys stay up to date on this stuff because they're so creative in the state of California that they just come up with new and unique ways to infringe on your rights almost on a daily basis.

I'll do my best to keep you guys up to date and on track with what's happening there. I want to thank you all very much for watching; I really do appreciate it. Again, make sure you check out AO in the description box, and if you haven't done so already, hit that subscribe button. You guys have a great day.

In this video I break down important developments in the Supreme Court rifle and mag ban cases!

In this video I breakdown a huge win. Oregon measure 114's permit requirement & magazine ban have been struck down!

California's SB1160 by Senator A. Portantino which would mandate annual registration across the state is done. It has been completely amended to the point it has nothing to do with annual registration any more. This is a huge relief for everyone watching this one closely.

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.