A new bill was just recently introduced that would BAN bulk ammunition as well as require background checks and record keeping amongst other things. This is due to S. 3223, introduced by S. Warren.

...

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. So, I think most of us understand that there will always be a struggle to maintain our constitutional rights. There's always going to be somebody out there who doesn't like the freedoms that we enjoy and would like to see those rights taken away. Usually, this comes in the form of Congress passing bills that restrict our rights, which is exactly what we have here—a new bill that was just introduced.

This bill would not only ban bulk ammo but add a ton of new regulations on top of all ammunition transactions. So, let's talk about this new bill that was just introduced in the Senate.

This video is proud to be sponsored by American Hartford Gold. Listen, if there is one thing that those of us in the Firearms Community understand, it's that you cannot rely on the government for your protection—not with your life and especially not with your wealth. Look throughout our lifetime; the dominance of the US dollar was unquestioned, but that may be changing as we face unprecedented inflation. The world's biggest economies are ditching the dollar for the Yen, banks are failing left and right, and the government is discussing total control of all your money with the new digital dollar.

Don't let your life savings become a casualty of failing corporations or currency wars. Now is the time to call the only precious metal dealer that I trust, American Hartford Gold. They'll show you how to protect your savings and retirement accounts by diversifying your wealth portfolio with physical gold and silver. With the finest products, amazing customer service, and a buyback commitment, American Hartford Gold has a five-star rating from thousands of reviews and an A+ from the Better Business Bureau. American Hartford Gold supports content like this that is committed to bringing you the truth. Tell them I sent you, and they'll give you up to $5,000 of free silver on your first order. So, call them now, click the link in the description, or call 866-856-257. That's 866-856-2507 or text "copper" to 65532.

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here. The bill that we're talking about today is S3220. This bill has been introduced and is currently sitting in front of the Judiciary Committee. But it's so new that it doesn't even have the full text uploaded online yet. All we have so far is the title of the bill, but the title gives us enough information to kind of digest what might be in the bill once it comes out.

Let me go ahead and read you guys the title so you know what this bill is trying to do. Okay, so let's go and read this directly from Congress's website. I'm at the page for the bill, and it says, "All information except text for S3223, a bill to amend Title 18 United States code to prevent bulk sales of ammunition." So that's the first part. I don't know exactly what they consider bulk—it could be a hundred or more, in which case, they would ban the sale of anything that exceeded that number. "Promote recordkeeping and reporting about ammunition." So, what they want to do here is they want to do a background check, very similar to what you would do through an FFL. All of that information would be kept by the FFL, and it would be the same type of recordkeeping you would keep for other things that you would get from an FFL. "Ammunition straw purchasing." So, I don't know if you guys ever thought about this, but straw purchasing for ammunition means that you wouldn't be able to get something—a box of anything—and then give it to somebody else. They can consider that a straw purchase and require a background check. Here's the background check part: "Require a background check before the transfer of ammunition by certain FFLs to non-licensees."

Okay, that's just the title of the bill. This is what Warren has to say herself. "Hey, everyone, it's Congressman Robert Garcia, and I'm here with Senator Elizabeth Warren, and we're really proud today to introduce the Ammo Act. The Ammo Act restricts bulk sales of ammunition across the country. It makes sure that retailers who are selling ammunition have the same federal licensing as folks that are selling guns, and it ensures that people that are buying ammunition go through some type of background check. Because here's the deal: right now, there are no federal restrictions on the sale of ammunition, and that makes no sense at all."

So, let's break this down. I want to start off with that very last part where it says background checks through FFLs to non-licenses. So, what they're saying with that title is if you want to sell, you're going to have to have an FFL's license. There's going to have to be a background check done, paperwork probably similar to a 4473, and a fee is going to have to be paid for that paperwork. You're not going to be able to go to any normal mom-and-pop place or someplace that sells tools. They're going to have to be a licensed FFL to do the transaction under this bill.

Now, because we don't have the full bill text, it's very hard to figure out what they would consider to be bulk. But keep in mind, these are the same people that consider 11 rounds to be high capacity, so I assume that number is going to be very low. The threshold for bulk is going to be very low as well. And then straw purchases and all that other stuff, it's all going to be in there. When the actual text comes out, we'll break it down and see exactly what they're trying to ban and what they're trying to block with this. But this is the same stuff that we get all the time.

So, I personally think this is in response to Braun, because as of right now, we're seeing multiple states have their laws overturned or enjoined, barred from enforcement. That has to do with the fact that there is no historical analog, no historical tradition of that type of firearm regulation. So, again, all these states that have been just running rampant lately with their laws are having those laws overturned. Instead of going after the same old thing over and over, I think what they're trying to do now is simply expand on what they feel like they have a right to regulate, which they don't because they're protected by the Second Amendment, just like something with a serial number is. They don't understand that arms are what's protected. We already know that the Supreme Court has said that magazines are arms, and that firearms are arms, obviously. Anything that you can hold in your hand for your own defense is considered an arm. So, these qualify as being protected by the Second Amendment as well. Even if this were to pass, we could use the Braun standard to go after it as well. But that's what they're going to try and do—expand and broaden what they try and go after in the future.

I wanted to make you guys aware of that. If we get the full text here soon and we actually are able to see what's written in the bill, I'll bring that to you so we can get some real hard numbers on it. But I want to thank you all very much for watching. I really do appreciate it. If you live within her district, please reach out and let her know that you do not stand for this whatsoever and to stop infringing on our constitutional rights. Thanks again for watching, you guys. Have a great day.

A Federal Appeals Court three judge panel on Friday said that "AR's" are not protected by the constitution. The reasoning behind their decision is outrageous and not based in fact. The opinion shows a clear lack of understanding of the subject matter in this case.

...

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. So, a federal court of appeals has just decided that AR-15s are not protected by the Constitution, and honestly, you guys will not believe the reasoning they gave for coming to that conclusion. Let's talk about it.

Now, real quick before we get started, I want to thank you all very much for watching this video. We are on our final push to 500,000 subscribers here, so if you have an extra second (it's free), hit that subscribe button, that little bell notification to let you know when new videos come out, and let's hit that 500,000 number before the end of the year. Thanks, let's get to it.

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here because this is completely ridiculous. I mean, this is about as bad as it gets, and it's outrageous. This just goes to show you that these judges care more about their own personal agenda than upholding the Constitution, the rule of law, or even following Supreme Court precedent.

So, this comes from a three-judge panel out of the seventh Circuit Court of Appeals that was dealing with Illinois's so-called assault weapons ban. It was a 2-to-1 split decision, and these are judges appointed by both Reagan and Clinton.

Before we talk about why they say that AR-15s are not protected by the Constitution, let me mention that the one dissenting judge didn't really put up that much of a fight. They didn't scold their colleagues like we've seen out of the ninth circuit recently, who've had descents that were pretty aggressive. This particular judge just said that there's no historical tradition of fire and regulation that matches the ban that Illinois currently has, and so that judge doesn't believe that the ban should stand. That's the correct way of looking at things.

But the other two judges definitely didn't see it that way, and this is how they came to their decision. The two judges in the majority basically said that the AR-15 too closely resembles the M16. Now, the M16, they're saying, is not protected by the Second Amendment in the Constitution, and therefore, because this one is similar, it's not protected either.

Now, you're probably out there thinking to yourself, "How is that possible? They are not the same thing whatsoever." And if I were to hand this to somebody in the military and say, "Good luck," they're going to be like, "What the hell is this? I don't want it because they're going to want what has the full fire controls and stuff like that." So, they're not the same, but these judges say because the AR is so easily converted, it should be considered the same, writing this: "The similarity between the AR-15 and the M16 only increases when we take into account how easily it is to modify the AR-15 by adding a 'bump stock' or an 'auto sear' to it, thereby making it, in essence, a fully automatic weapon."

Now, they added on to that by saying that they both "deliver the same kinetic energy." Now, I'm thinking to myself, if they ever used a 300 wind mag, we'll talk about kinetic energy at another time. This is not the most viable option when it comes to purely kinetic energy and/or ballistics.

In my mind, there are two factors here at play. The first one is these judges do not understand the subject matter at hand. They don't know what they're talking about. They don't understand what they're talking about. They don't have the same life experience. They don't have the same hands-on experience. They don't have the range experience like you and I do so that we have a knowledgeable understanding of the topic. The other thing is, number two, they also have a personal agenda. They would like to see these things gone. And so, anytime that they can conflate things or connect the dots in any which way that would maybe get them around brewing Supreme Court precedent or would maybe just fit their agenda so that they can get done what they want done regardless of what the rule of law is or what the Constitution says, they'll do that. And so, we almost have like a woeful ignorance here. That's kind of what's going on.

So, again, you can see that the subject matter here is not understood by these judges. They're trying to connect the dots that just don't connect, and they say things that just don't make any sense to those of us who do understand it. And so, we get decisions like this.

Now, obviously, this is going to end up going up to the Supreme Court, right? We already have other cases that'll probably end up at the Supreme Court as well. So, more than likely, the Supreme Court's going to hear it, and just based on the numbers, I mean, just based on the common use test and the fact that it implicates the Second Amendment, I believe we would get a win out of the Supreme Court. And so, the seventh circuit, the ninth circuit, they're both going to be smacked down relatively soon. But just blatantly saying that they're not protected by the Constitution at all based on those reasons is, like I said in the beginning, outrageous. And I wanted to let you guys know about that. So, 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 Supreme Court has decided to grant Cert in Garland v. Cargill which challenges the ATFs ban on "bump stocks". This case is about weather this executive agency has the authority to ban accessories where congress has not.

...

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. So it looks like the Supreme Court has decided to take up another massive Second Amendment case with huge implications. This case could really end up being almost as big as Bruan, and Bruan changed the Second Amendment landscape within the United States core systems forever. So this is very big.

We're talking about Garland V Cargill, which is challenging the ATF's ban on bump stocks. But that's not what it's about. If you think it's just about that one specific device, try and remember that Bruan was only about Carrie. It had nothing to do with, you know, changing the Second Amendment landscape in our courts forever. This right here has to do with ATF and the ATF's authority to regulate accessories. This is going to be big. Let's talk about it.

Now, before we get started, I noticed there's a huge percentage of people out there who watch these videos but are not subscribed. If you wouldn't mind, take a quick second, hit that subscribe button. It's free, it doesn't cost you anything. Hit that little bell notification and stay on top of your Second Amendment rights. And also, check out the main sponsor of this channel, which is the USCA. With your USCA membership, you get things like self-defense liability insurance, reciprocity maps, online education and training, and a lot more. It's the best membership you could ever have in your wallet. So if you carry to defend yourself, I suggest you have a USCCA membership.

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here. Earlier today, the Supreme Court decided to grant CT in Garland V Cargill, which basically just means that they've decided to take this case on as part of their workload. Garland V Cargill, like we said before, is a case that challenges the ATF's ban on bump stocks, but it's not about that device. And I've been telling people that for years now. What it's really about is the ATF's authority to ban something that is not regulated by Congress.

There's no law that Congress has passed that bans these specific accessories. What they're doing is they are redefining and changing what these accessories are once they are installed. And so this challenges the ATF's authority to do that. And so it's a huge case. The ATF lately has banned things like triggers and banned accessories like the brace, right? They've been going after accessories to try and circumvent Congress, who again hasn't passed any law against these specific accessories. They're just kind of taking this up on their own. So really, that's what this case is about.

So what does this mean for us? If we get a win here, and I think we will get a win here, I think that the precedent set forth by the fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court being mostly conservative at this point, you're going to see a win here. And if the opinion is broad enough, it could essentially put a stop to all of these bans that the ATF has already created. There's lawsuits going on about the brace, about the triggers, and other things. And it would make those cases moot, right? Because the ATF would not be allowed to regulate such devices or change their definition. It wouldn't allow the ATF to exceed their scope, which is simply law enforcement and not law creation. The law creation is left up to Congress, law enforcement is left up to the ATF. But the ATF has been using their rulemaking powers in order to create new laws and enforce new laws that they create. Again, they've grown way outside of their scope here.

So what I'm really trying to say here is that this case is huge because it is the first step in reigning in this agency's overreach. Right now, any administration that's in office can simply say, "Hey, I don't like this particular thing. I would like to see it gone." The ATF can simply redefine it and then write a rule and watch it vanish. And they shouldn't have the ability to do that. They shouldn't have the ability to circumvent Congress.

So while you might think, again, that this is just about one particular device or one particular item, it's not. We could see something massive come out of this case that really, again, reigns in the ATF's overreach. So I, for one, am very excited to follow this one and see what happens. Hopefully, we do get that win, like I said, I think we will. But you just never know until it's over. So we will follow it, but it's still very big news that they decided to take this case on, and I wanted to share that with you. So thank you all very much for watching. I really do appreciate it. Please like, subscribe, you guys have a great day.

Since the recent injunction in Boland v. Bonta we've seen several new things added to the California Roster. Most are things that were once previously on the roster. Thankfully now we have something that folks in California want and have been asking for in 2023.

...

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. So finally, some exciting news out of the state of California where something new has finally been added to the roster. As a matter of fact, it is sorely needed and probably the best thing that's been added to the roster yet. So let's go and talk about what it is.

Now, real quick before we get started, I want to thank you all very much for watching this video. We are on our final push to 500,000 subscribers here. So if you have an extra second (it's free), hit that subscribe button, that little bell notification to let you know when new videos come out. Let's hit that 500,000 number before the end of the year. Thanks. Let's get to it.

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here and why this is happening. You guys have probably seen it. There's been quite a few new things that have been added to the roster. A lot of them are things that were already on the roster previously but then expired and then weren't allowed to come back because of all the rules and regulations—micro stamping and stuff.

This is all happening because of the injunction in Bolan V bont, which has been a very, very big deal and it's been a very good thing for the roster as well. The injunction, which essentially said that you can't have micro stamping or loaded chamber indicators, magazine disconnect mechanisms, things like that, was appealed by the state of California. However, they did not appeal the micro stamping portion. That's why we're seeing all of these new things recently being added to the roster.

But this one right here takes the cake: the Sig P365 is now on the roster. So now we have the 320 and we have the 365, full size and subcompact. And the reason why this is so big and so great is because the 365 is probably one of the best carry pieces that you're going to find.

Now, it seems like California might be up to their standard shenanigans because I check the recently added page fairly often, and I have not seen that on there. It's not been on the recently added page. As a matter of fact, if you go check right now, it's still not on the recently added page. The only way that you can find it is by searching up that brand, and you will see all of the different things that have been added recently and you'll see little asterisks next to it, you know, things that are new and stuff like that. So it's not something that they wanted a ton of people to know about, and I think that's because of its overall popularity. They know that this is going to be a very big hit, they know that people are going to want it, and so they're just trying to sneak it under the rug.

Now, because the 365 was recently added, I want to let you guys know about some updates in some carry cases that we have in California, one of which is going to have a hearing as early as tomorrow. So if you guys know, we have a lawsuit that's been kind of back and forth between the ninth circuit and the district courts trying to overturn California's ban on open carry. There is a hearing set for tomorrow morning in that case. This is a case that was remanded by the ninth circuit back down to the district court because they didn't follow the proper procedures when denying originally denying an injunction. The ninth circuit also kind of told them that, "Hey, you got this one wrong." So taking a look at the merits, we could see California's ban on open carry overturned fairly soon. Again, the hearing is tomorrow, so we could have an answer in this one as early as a week or two.

Now, there's also multiple lawsuits challenging SB2, which is California's carry ban. The carry ban which makes it extremely expensive, very difficult to get your permit, and then once you get your permit, limits just about anywhere that you can carry is also being challenged. And we're looking for an injunction in that one as well, and that's making its way through the district court as of right now.

So as far as carry goes right now, it looks like our best chance to have something is going to be overturning this whole open carry ban that California has. So again, this is very, very important stuff, and I think that with that being added to the roster, it gives people at least one fantastic option that they can choose from. So I wanted to make you guys aware of that. I want to thank you all very much for watching. I really do appreciate it. If you haven't done so already, please subscribe, hit that little like button. That'd be fantastic and that little alarm bell which will notify you when new videos come out. Thanks again. Have a good one.

The head of the ATF, Steven Dettelbach this week openly called for a new ban on so called "assault weapons". However during his confirmation hearing he admitted he didn't even know how to define them. I wonder if we could now see a new "rule".

...

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. So, how do you ban something that doesn't exist? Well, I'm not sure, but that's what the ATF director, Steven Debach, would like to do. He's calling for a so-called assault weapons ban but doesn't even know what one is.

Mr. Debach, in your 2018 campaign for attorney general, you called for a ban on so-called assault weapons. What is an assault weapon? Could you define it for me?

Senator: I, uh, when I was a candidate for office, I did talk about restrictions on assault weapons. I did not define the term, and I haven't gone through the process of defining that term.

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here. Again, Steven Deach, the head of the ATF, the same agency that's recently created multiple rules infringing on our constitutional rights, has decided to call for a so-called assault weapons ban. During his confirmation hearing, he didn't even know what one was. He mentioned relying on experts at the agency and using whatever definition Congress came up with.

Let's take a look at the exchange between him and Senator Josh Hawley. Why is it so hard to define assault weapons?

Director Debach: Well, I think, Senator, what I told you, which is that you don't want it to be so narrow as to be meaningless and you don't want it to be so broad as to infringe on the rights of law-abiding Americans unnecessarily. Congress took an effort at that definition in 1994.

Senator: What did you think of that definition that Congress used?

Director Debach: I don't know enough about that part. That's a definition I'm not particularly familiar with, and I haven't studied the data on how on that particular definition. I've heard comments on both sides of that, Senator. I acknowledge that's a very difficult issue. Is it because there's really not a category of weapons known as assault weapons? I mean, there are rifles, shotguns, pistols. Can you go into a federally licensed firearm dealer and find the category of weapons labeled on the wall as assault weapons?

Director Debach: I don't believe that's a category of weapons that's labeled on the wall of retailers. It's not necessarily what retailers call it that would affect the decision of a legislative body.

So, Josh Hawley pretty much nailed it. There's no definition because they don't exist. It is a name that people in Washington gave them to make them seem scarier than they actually are. The fact that Debach doesn't even know what the 94 ban was about is telling.

He's now calling for an assault weapons ban, saying it's the job of Congress to define assault weapons. However, he contradicts himself by admitting there is no definition, and Congress hasn't created one yet. He's essentially calling for a ban on something that doesn't exist.

This is concerning because if they can make it seem like a legitimate category, they can create a definition and ban whatever they want. The ATF, instead of just enforcing existing laws, is creating new rules and definitions. It's something to keep an eye on as the more support they gain, the more meaning the term "assault weapons" may end up having.

Anyway, thank you all for watching. If you haven't subscribed yet, please consider doing so, and hit that like button. I really appreciate it. Have a great day!

California’s AG has booked a win in the case of Miller v. Bonta which challenges the states so called "assault weapon" ban. The state had asked for an emergency stay to stop an injunction by Judge Benitez from going into effect pending the appeal.

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. So, we got some unfortunate news over the weekend. California did get a win in Miller v. Bonta, which is the case challenging California's ban on so-called assault weapons. So let's go ahead and talk about what happened and what small piece of good might have come out of this.

Now, real quick before we get started, I want to thank you all very much for watching this video. We are on our final push to 500,000 subscribers here, so if you have an extra second, it's free – hit that subscribe button and that little bell notification. It'll let you know when new videos come out, and let's hit that 500,000 number before the end of the year. Thanks, let's get to it.

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here. As I'm sure most of you know, on October 19th, Judge Roger Benitez found in Miller v. Bonta that California's ban on so-called assault weapons was in fact unconstitutional, placing an injunction against the enforcement of that law. Unfortunately, he simultaneously placed a 10-day stay on his own order to give California time to appeal, and they did appeal to the ninth circuit on the same day.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals tends to work pretty slow. They later on asked for an emergency stay to be placed on that injunction so that the law would remain in effect while the appeals process took place. That was heard by a three-judge panel, and the three-judge panel decided to grant California that stay. It was a two-to-one decision, a split decision, but again, they granted California that stay and allowed the law to still exist while that appeal is taking place.

Now, like I said before, there is one good thing at least that came out of this. I'm trying to stay optimistic here. Even though it sucks that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals once again sided with the state of California and is allowing a clearly unconstitutional law to remain in effect while this appeals process goes through, that's what you expect from the Ninth Circuit. They almost always side with the state of California because a majority of the Ninth Circuit judges are activist judges with their own agenda.

But at the same time, as I said before, something good did come out of this. Out of the three-judge panel, two judges voted for the stay, one voted to allow the injunction to take place, but they decided to expedite the appeal. That's unusual for the Ninth Circuit because they like to drag things out for as long as possible. However, we're going to be hearing oral arguments as early as December.

I personally believe that this is going to end up at the Supreme Court based on everything I'm seeing from the Ninth Circuit, especially in Duncan. I don't think they're going to change their ways. They're going to allow this to go up to the Supreme Court. But I think that's exactly what California and other states with similar bans don't want to see happen because if it's at the Supreme Court, you're talking about possibly overturning all bans like this nationwide.

As it stands right now in the Ninth Circuit, it would only affect states within the Ninth Circuit. That's a lot smaller than what would happen if it went to the Supreme Court, where you'd see this across the entire country. There are also very similar lawsuits right now in other circuit courts, like the Fourth Circuit, which has a very similar lawsuit that could end up at the Supreme Court as well.

So, I think there's a very good chance that the Supreme Court is going to hear at least one of these cases and they're going to take this on. I think, post-Breyer, that we would get a win, but that's only based on my opinion and what I've been seeing. That's just my own projection.

I think it's going to end up at the Supreme Court. They're going to hear it, and we might end up seeing all of these bans overturned nationwide. So, it's up to the Ninth Circuit to decide whether or not they keep this within the Ninth Circuit, decide that they're going to follow the rule of law, side with the Second Amendment, and overturn the ban, keeping it within the Ninth Circuit. Or they're going to let it go up to the Supreme Court, in which case we'll overturn it for the entire country. The ball's kind of in their court, and they might have gotten the win here, but the last word is going to be on us. We'll see what happens. I'll keep you guys updated, but I want to thank you all very much for watching. I really do appreciate it. Please like and subscribe. You guys have a great day.

A man was raided for registering a so called "assault weapon". Police entered the home with a search warrant and the man conducts himself perfectly. This is an excellent example of what to do if they come knocking.

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. So today, we're going to be taking a look and breaking down a video of law enforcement serving a search warrant simply because somebody tried to register their so-called assault weapon in the state of California. With all of the different states out there that just recently passed these so-called assault weapons bans, this is definitely something that everybody's going to want to pay attention to because the guy in this video does everything right in my opinion; he does everything right. So let's go ahead and take a look at it.

Now, real quick before we get started, I want to thank you all very much for watching this video. We are on our final push to 500,000 subscribers here, so if you have an extra second (it's free), hit that subscribe button, that little bell notification to let you know when new videos come out, and let's hit that 500,000 number before the end of the year. Thanks, let's get to it.

Now, real quick, I do want to mention that this video is about 2 years old. It came up on my social media feed; it brought back some memories, and I thought that it was a perfect example to share with you and people who are in states that just passed similar bans, especially states that are asking for registration like Illinois. So, again, watch and learn because this is what's going to happen, and this is how it should be handled.

"Jacob, can we talk to you real quick?"

"I'm not. No, I'm not going to say anything."

"You guys can do what you want to do."

"What? I don't give consent for search or seizure or anything."

"No, we have a search warrant."

"So, I'm not asking for your consent, okay?"

"I don't want to talk; we're not talking at all."

"So, do what you're going to do; I'll be over here."

"Please step over here."

"Oh, so you're going to go inside without a knock on the door."

"They're going to the door just for our safety; we don't know if you called it before."

"We don't know, yeah, I could see that."

"So just for safety reasons, so I'm going to explain to you what's going on, so you have an idea what's going on."

"Alright, I already know what's going on. I don't even need to hear it; I don't even want to hear it."

"I don't want to hear it."

"Man, but it's nothing."

"What we're going to tell you is if the gun is... it's nothing."

"I don't want to hear it."

"It's nothing personal; you guys are doing your job, but I'm just telling you if it's..."

"Hi, what's up? Can you let him know what they're looking for and where it is?"

"And they don't have to; no, we're not going to be helping you at all."

"I've already explained that multiple times. All I ask is you respect that my four little kids are here."

"Okay, I'm not; we're not going to be assisting at all. You guys can do your thing."

"We're not consenting to search or seizure; okay, end of story."

"No, understand that. And if you; if you, and I remember, you're on video."

"Why are my daughters; that's great. I'm glad. Why are my daughters not with my wife right now?"

"Down, open the door, okay?"

"So should she go back up now? Hey, you guys can go up. Yes, I said it; I'm going to sit down three times."

"I provide it; I was walking towards the chair, sir."

"It'll be a lot easier to just direct us to it, so we don't have to..."

"Just because, like I said, I already said I'm not going to say anything."

"You guys have what you're going to do; I'm letting you know we do have the search warrant."

"As you can see, it's right in front of you."

"I don't consent to any search; part of the search warrant is a search of any place where the gun can be at."

"Okay, so that could be any crevice, any box, anywhere."

"Instead of us going digging through everything, okay, if you can direct us to exactly where it is."

"We're just looking for this one firearm; that's it. We're not looking for anything else. We're not looking for, hi."

"Okay, I'm going to call my lawyer."

"Um, yeah, that was mine. I'm talking; you guys moved here from Texas. I'm going to answer any questions."

"No, I know, I know; I appreciate law enforcement."

"But, uh, the chair, I got water, you got water."

"Jacob, we found what we're looking for; we're going to try to inspect it."

"It is not an assault weapon, so we're going to leave it. We're going to forward it; your application is going to be approved, you understand."

"I'm not saying anything."

"Okay, so we're going to leave this here; we have you a copy of the property receipt, or sorry, of the search warrant, and we're done, alright?"

"Do you have any other questions? Do you have any questions?"

"I'm not talking; well, he's trying to give you an opportunity."

"Because if you build that wrong, you're going to be in trouble, so I know you probably know the law. I just talked to a lawyer, okay, sir, I appreciate law enforcement, but please..."

"Just so we're; just trying to help you out here, make sure you're in compliance with that."

"Thing right now; she's taking. I can't hear you; I can't hear you."

"No, I'm saying for you; they look just like you."

"Okay; two here; a little bit too, but these two, definitely."

"You have any questions? I'm not talking anymore."

"Disgraceful. I accept your apology."

Okay, so let's go and break down what we just watched there. Law enforcement shows up searching for that elusive assault weapon, right, that thing that doesn't really exist but they like to call it some type of scary name, so that it seems like it's more dangerous than it is. So they show up; they have a warrant, which means they don't have to ask your permission to go in the house; they're going to go in the house even if you tell them not to. You don't have to consent to anything; they're going to do it.

So they show up with a search warrant, but the guy still says, "Look, I'm not going to say anything. I'm not going to talk to you guys; I don't consent to a search. Just do what you have to do, and leave me out of it," which is perfect. That's perfect; that's what you should say. "I'm not going to say anything; I don't want to help you; I don't want to talk to you; you guys do what you need to do." Execute your search warrant, but you're not getting any help from me. And I love how the police are always like, "Can you just tell us where it is? Can you just show us? We're here to help; we're trying to help you." I mean, nothing is more frightening when the government shows up and says, "We're here to help." I mean, when they show up and say, "We're here to help," that's when you know things are not good.

So, he says, "Just go ahead and do what you've got to do; I'm not going to help you in any way." So they do; they go ahead, and they commence their search, and what do they find? They find nothing but an almost completed lower and above buffer tube. I mean, that's pretty much it, right? So obviously, that doesn't fit any of the criteria that they're looking for in the state of California because even if it was just the upper and the lower separated, it's not complete. So if it's not complete, then it's not what they think it is. So, they can't hold this guy for anything, and he sees it; they show it to him. They say, "Hey, we're going to let your application process go through." "Oh, thank you, dear Overlord. I really do appreciate that." I mean, give me a break.

I don't know about you guys, but when's the last time you saw law enforcement serve a search warrant just because simply somebody was applying to do things the right way? I believe this guy moved from Texas, so he might have already had some stuff, but thankfully, he kept things apart and separate, and he had the grip off and stuff like that. So when they found it, it wasn't in the configuration that he would have gotten in trouble for. But nonetheless, it was the way that they tried to go about doing things, and you know it's all about that whole just, you know, "we're just following orders" thing, right? They never apologize for upsetting the family; they never tried to make things right. They act like they're robots; they do their job; they do their duty. And then once it's over, and there's nothing to be found, they just have a nice day, and they walk out.

I mean, after screwing up your entire day because I guarantee you that was a really stressful situation for him, especially if he's not somebody who grew up or was raised with the way that California has been. A lot of us know how California is; we just expect it. But if you grew up somewhere else in a free state, and then you come, and all of a sudden, the police are knocking at your door, welcome to California, you know that that can be a really stressful situation. But like he said, he talked to his lawyer; again, that's perfect. I know that not everybody has access to a lawyer right off the bat, but if you don't have access to a lawyer, at least just keep your damn mouth shut. Don't say anything, but be polite, and then wait for them to leave because that's probably going to help you the most.

You cannot not say anything to the police that they won't use against you. They'll use everything; they'll search; they'll do everything they can to try and make you expose yourself. So the best thing you can do is stay quiet but stay polite. As long as you're polite and you just kind of stay out of it, they don't have anything else to add to their report, and you don't want to help them with their report either. So again, I feel that this guy did pretty much everything right; he just kind of held back and then when they found what they found wasn't what they were looking for, so they left, and that's probably the best way that he can handle it. And his lawyer is aware of it now, so they can handle things afterward. But just trying to comply with the law can get you in trouble, and that proves it right there. All he did was file an application, and guess what? California is knocking at your door, and so this can happen in other states.

Illinois right now is a really big one; they're having people register. They're going to have people register who bought things after the time that they were supposed to have gotten them and then register them, which is almost like committing a crime in itself. So these raids and these warrants can be issued and can be done just about anywhere. So any state that has any type of law like this, you're almost guaranteed to see these things happen. So it's best to know how to respond and how to handle them when they show up. I wanted to share that with you; hopefully, it was an informative video that you guys can maybe take something from, even though it's a couple of years old, it's still very relevant. So I want to thank you all very much for watching; I really do appreciate it. Please like, subscribe; have a great day.

Due to the signing of SB2 California has effectively banned carry in the state. This new law takes effect January 1st 2024. There is a lawsuit challenging this case and we now know who the judge is that will oversee the case and a date for an injunction hearing. We may have an injunction against this carry ban before the end of the year.

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. So today I've got some news and an update for you in regards to California's effective ban on concealed carry, which is going to be taking effect on January 1st, 2024. So at the time of this video, in just a couple of months from now.

Now, I call it an effective ban because, with the number of sensitive places that are listed in SB2, which is what's taking effect, you really can't carry just about anywhere - public places, private businesses - I mean, just about everything is off limits. And one thing that people aren't talking about that much is that some language was removed from SB2, which is going to make it almost impossible for people to follow the law even if they wanted to.

So, there used to be a provision in there that said if you wanted to enter an establishment, there had to be a sign that told people whether or not they were prohibited or whether or not they were allowed. Well, they don't require that signage anymore. That was removed from the bill. So now if you enter a business, if you enter a private establishment, with no sign but their policy says that people with CCWs are not allowed inside or you're not allowed to carry inside, you could essentially be breaking the law 20 times a day and not even know it. So there's some pretty big stuff happening here. We're going to talk about that right now.

Now, speaking of concealed carry, one of the worst things that you could do is actually leave the house unarmed. And one of the biggest reasons that people do that is because the holster that they have is uncomfortable. That's why today's video is brought to you by vanish holsters. Vanish holsters are honestly one of the most comfortable holsters that you will ever use.

The reason it's so comfortable is because the back of the vanish holster is a material that feels just like silk. It's extremely smooth, it doesn't absorb any moisture, it doesn't get sticky, so it's going to feel real nice against your body. And with this having its own belt, you don't have to worry about what you're wearing. Not only is the back made out of very comfortable material, but the front is made out of very tough material. This is 1,000 denier Cordura nylon. I'm wearing a belt to hold up my shorts, but I wanted to demonstrate to you guys how nice this vanish holster actually holds this pistol to my body. So it doesn't matter whether it's appendix, if it's small, the back, 3:00, 4:00, wherever you want to put it, whatever is most comfortable for you, it holds it really nice and tight to the body and it feels just extremely comfortable all the way around. So whether you're a big person or a small person, or you like to wear gym shorts or sweatpants, now you can carry at all times. Check out the vanish holster; the link will be down below.

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here. If you weren't aware, SB2 was passed earlier this year and almost immediately signed by Governor Newsom. Now after he signed it, since there was no urgency clause in this final version (and there were multiple versions - this thing was amended over and over and over), at one point, there was an urgency clause that meant that it would have taken effect immediately, but that emergency clause was removed. So the start date or the effective date of that new law is going to be on the 1st of January 2024, like I said before.

This particular bill is bad in multiple ways. We could go on all day and just talk about how SB2 is a bad bill. I mean, it's California's response bill, right? So before in California, you had to show some type of good cause or just cause to get a permit. Just about all counties - you know, there are a few good ones, but most counties in California were using that good cause or just cause to deny just about everybody a permit. In fact, no permits were issued in decades in San Francisco because of that good cause or just cause. People would get denied left and right. In LA County, the only people that had permits were judges, retired law enforcement, you know, things like that. If you were just an average person, you couldn't get a permit. So Bruan said that you can't do that anymore. People have a right to carry, and you can't have good cause or just cause.

California originally replaced that with good moral character, and then through the amendments that have been made to this bill, they even got rid of the good moral character part of it while still, at the same time, doing such extensive background checks that they're looking at absolutely everything. I mean, they're going to be checking into all aspects of your life, including a deep dive into your social media. There's a lot going on here. It's more expensive, it's more time-consuming, there's more training; there's so much more that's involved that it's just out of control. And then you add on top of that all the different sensitive places, and what that does is it means that not only is it going to be nearly impossible to get a permit (that's if you could afford one - as it stands right now, you're almost looking at $1,000 in California to get your permit), but once you actually get your permit, you pretty much can't use it anywhere because just about everywhere is considered a sensitive place. And like I was saying before, if you wanted to go into a private building or even a public building, public transit, things like that, it's all going to be off-limits, and there's no sign requirement like I was saying before.

Again, if you wanted to let's say just go into the laundromat, right? You're going to go into the laundromat. That laundromat isn't required to put up a sign saying that you can carry there. Now, something goes down there, and then you find out that their policy was that you couldn't carry there, you end up defending yourself, right? And then you go to court. Well, it turns out that their policy was you couldn't carry there, now you're the one that's in trouble. So there is just so much going on with this that it's unbelievable.

But thankfully, the CRPA filed a lawsuit pretty much immediately. In fact, I believe that the CRPA filed their lawsuit before Newsom even signed it. So if you're not a member of the CRPA, I suggest you do that because they're doing a lot for California right now and trying to get things overturned here. So they're the ones who filed a big lawsuit. I believe that the FPC might be on one as well, but this particular lawsuit is seeking an injunction, and we have a date where the judge is going to hear it, and we know what judge is going to be overseeing, basically, taking on this case.

The judge in this case, and we have a lot to be happy about here, is going to be Judge Carney. The reason that I say we have a lot to be happy about is because Judge Carney is the same judge that gave us the injunction in Bolan v. Bonta, which is the case that challenged California's roster, and he placed an injunction on several aspects of that roster. So he seems to be like he's a thoughtful person, a reasonable person, and it seems that he cares about people's second amendment rights in that state. So it's nice that it's not going before some activist judge who is just going to rule against us regardless of what our arguments are.

We also have a date for a hearing in this case for a potential injunction, and that date is going to be December 4th. I believe it's going to be at 1:30 p.m., which is kind of close. I mean, December 4th is less than a month away from the effective date of SB2. So, I mean, we're cutting it really close here, but we have an idea just based on the way that he's done things in the past when it comes to cases like this that he could provide injunctive relief against SB2 before the 1st of January. As a matter of fact, some of the experts in this case and some of the people from the CRPA believe that he will provide some type of injunctive relief prior to the actual effective date.

Now, this CRPA case isn't necessarily looking to overturn SB2, even though that's what CRPA would like. This is more focused. What this CRPA case is focused on is the egregious use of sensitive places. So basically, California is just a blanket sensitive place once this takes effect, and CRPA feels that they have a good chance of getting an injunction against that portion of SB2 specifically since it is just so widespread. And then after they get an injunction or after they're able to overturn that aspect of SB2, which would allow people again to carry pretty much wherever they wanted, other than places that have been prohibited there for decades, after they do that, then they could file lawsuits against other aspects of SB2 and try to get the entire thing overturned. But what they're looking at right now, again, is mostly going after those sensitive places. So even though it would still be tough to get your permit and you'd have to go through all this time and money and everything else to get it, at least if we get an injunction here, you'd be able to use it, which is I think a bonus.

So we have some big stuff coming up here. I believe there are other lawsuits that are challenging this as well, but I think that this one probably has the best likelihood of success. And if we have success in this and we get an injunction prior to the 1st of January, then that would be fantastic. Obviously, they couldn't use just cause or good cause or good moral character to give you a permit. They're going to have to give you a permit as long as you're not a prohibited person and there's other steps as well, but once you got it, then you could at least carry. As it stands right now, if we don't get this injunction and things don't go well on December 4th, then essentially it will be banned in California come next year.

I believe this hearing is going to be live-streamed on December 4th, and if it is, I'm going to go live here so we can have some commentary and kind of go back and forth about what the arguments are and what they're saying. So if this is a topic that's important to you, and it should be important to everybody in California because, again, you won't be able to carry, then hit that little alarm bell that'll send you a notification when I come out with new videos, and it will also notify you when I go live on that day that the hearing takes place. So, again, a very important topic, one of the worst bills, one of the worst laws that we have seen in the state of California, and that's kind of saying something because there are so many bad ones. But, again, something that you guys should know. So, thankfully, now with this update, we have a date, we have a hearing, and maybe even a potential injunction. I want to thank everybody very much for watching. Please like, subscribe, and you guys have a great day.

As of October 1st 2023 yet another state has begun requiring their residents to register all "banned" semi auto firearms. It's been more than 3 weeks since the start of registration and not even a tenth of one percent have actually done it.

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. So today I want to talk to you guys about one of the biggest acts of Civil Disobedience that I have seen across this country in a long time. Over the past couple of years, we've seen multiple states introduce some new type of so-called assault weapons ban, and with those bans, a lot of times there's either grandfathering or there's registration that's involved. And there is one state out there right now that's saying we're not having it, and the numbers of people who are actually registering are so small, it's less than one-tenth of a percent. You are not going to believe what state is actually standing up to their government. Let's talk about it.

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here. Now, even if you don't live there, you're probably aware of who JB Pritzker is and the so-called Protect Illinois Communities Act, which essentially and unconstitutionally banned most semi-automatic long guns in the state of Illinois while at the same time forcing people to register what they already have. So if you own something that is now banned, the state wants to know who you are. They want all of your information. They want to know what you have. They want to dig into your personal life, and they want you to turn over all of that information. How many people do you think actually followed through with that?

So the state said that they want you to start or begin registration on October 1st, 2023. So now it's been like what, almost 3 weeks? How many people have actually registered? Well, according to Illinois, something like 2,415,481 people have FID cards, which is the Firearm Owner Identification Card. Now, with that card, they're assuming that a majority of those people have what is now banned. So far, only 246 people have actually registered.

Now, 246 people is kind of a lot, it's more than I'd like to see, but as a percentage, that's only 0.8% of people have registered in the past three weeks. That's 8/100s of just 1% of people have registered in the now over 3-week period that the registration has been opened, which is absolutely phenomenal.

Now, in this graph right here, you'll see that there is another number, which is kind of bigger, a 6,000 number. That's because you have the amount of people who have done the registration process. Each one of those people may have had multiple things to register, and that's why the amount that's been registered is higher than the number of people who have actually registered something.

So again, 0.08% – it's absolutely unbelievable, and it just makes me happy. It just makes me happy to see that people in Illinois are saying no, we're not going to put up with it. We're not going to give over our private information. It is none of your business to know what I own and what I have as my private property, and I'm not going to tell you. I think it's absolutely phenomenal that somebody's finally standing up to their state and saying, "Look, this law is unconstitutional. We know it, and so we're not going to go along with it."

Now, unfortunately, as a side note, there are some people out there that are just stuck in legal limbo anyway and couldn't register even if they wanted to. That's because when the law took effect, it said you could keep what you had before this law was created, but you're going to have to register it. Well, in the middle of when that period was from when the law was created to the time that you had to start registering, there was an injunction, there was a lawsuit, and then there was an injunction. And during that injunction time period when this law couldn't be enforced, people went out and a lot of people went out and they got what is now banned. Then there was a stay placed on that injunction, that means the law went back into effect. Well, these people still own these things, right? But the law says that if you owned it prior to when the law was created, then you have to register it. What's going on with the stuff that people got in the meantime, right? Those people are kind of left out because it's almost like a trap. If they were to register it, they have to put down when they got it, and if they got it after the law was created, then that's a violation in its own right. So they would essentially be self-incriminating or incriminating themselves if they filled out that paperwork and went through the registration process.

So again, they're kind of stuck in legal limbo where they don't even know what to do. But anybody who had something prior to that is basically telling the state to kick rocks and shove it, which is phenomenal. I know it's just going to be a short video, but that was such a great number. I was curious to see what was going on in Illinois since the registration started, and I honestly wasn't expecting it to be 0.8%. It just shows that the people in Illinois are doing it right. Even if people continue to register at a slow trickle, it may get up to 1%, but we're not even at a tenth of a percent yet. And we would have to get all the way up to 1%, and 1% would still be low. So again, I think it's phenomenal, and I wanted to share that number with you. It just makes me feel good inside. Thanks again for watching, guys. Really do appreciate it. Please like, subscribe. Have a great day.

The State of California is very concerned that the 10 day stay that Benitez place on his own injunction is going to expire. They feel that 10 days simply isn't enough so they are taking their concerns to the 9th circuit court.

Hey, everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. So it looks like the state of California might be in a little bit of a panic. As you know, they're trying to get an appeal in Miller v. Bonta. They are unhappy with Judge Benitez’s decision to order an injunction against enforcement of the state's so-called assault weapons ban. Now he stayed that injunction for 10 days to give time for California to appeal to the Ninth Circuit. But things are moving a little bit too slow for California, so, again, like I said, California is a little bit of a panic. They filed for an emergency stay. So let's talk about what that means.

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here. Like I said in the beginning, California has already filed its appeal against Judge Benitez’s order, which enjoined California from enforcing its so-called assault weapons ban, the same order that he put a 10-day stay on in order to allow California to file for that appeal. But California filed that appeal on the exact same day. But the problem is the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is not known for being the fastest court in the country. As a matter of fact, they are one of the slowest. So it's very possible that the 10-day stay on his own order that Judge Benitez placed could potentially expire. So California doesn't want that.

So yesterday, they filed for an emergency stay with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It starts off with the state complaining that the injunction was just too broad. And then it continues to say that the 10-day stay that he placed on his own order is just too short. So it says here, "The district court permanently enjoined California's restrictions on every statutory defined category of semi-automatic rifles, pistols, and shotguns that qualify as so-called assault weapons under California Penal Code Section 30315. Those firearms are defined as such because of particular features that make them uniquely dangerous to the public and law enforcement."

This emergency motion seeks a stay pending appeal of the District Court's order. It is necessary for the Attorney General to seek this relief in an emergency motion because the district court refused to grant anything beyond a 10-day stay, viewing that as a sufficient period to seek a stay from the Court of Appeals. Absent further stay from this court, the district court's sweeping injunction will expire on October 29th, and the assault weapons that have been prohibited for decades will suddenly flood into the state.

So here's one of the reasons that California says that the Ninth Circuit should grant them their emergency stay. It says, "Because an injunction barring the enforcement of a duly enacted statute poses a substantial risk of harming the public interest, appellate courts routinely issue stays pending appeal when the lower court enjoins a statute."

Now, some of what's in that statement is actually true. Appellate courts do tend to grant emergency stays when a statute is affected. But in this case, this particular statute affects people's constitutional rights, so it's supposed to be looked at in a different light because this statute directly affects people's constitutional rights, and we have a district court judge who has multiple times said that it affects people's constitutional rights. It's supposed to be looked at in a different light. But do you think the Ninth Circuit is going to do that, or do you think they're just going to side with the state of California? Because whether it causes any type of substantial harm to public interest shouldn't really be a factor at all.

Does it, on its face, infringe on people's constitutional rights? If that is the case, then the injunction should be allowed to take effect when Judge BZ's 10-day stay runs out. But again, this is the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. They will use absolutely any possible way to side with the state, and so they could simply look at this and say that, "Hey, we're just trying to maintain the status quo." When it comes to the status quo in California, you're going to hear that quite a bit because this is a law that's been around for about 30 years. Since it's been around for about three decades, they say that by granting this emergency stay, they are at least just simply upholding the status quo until the appellate court has time to look at the appeal.

So based on everything that I've seen from the Ninth Circuit in Duncan, I have a feeling they are going to grant this emergency stay. And if they do grant this emergency stay, it means that the law is going to remain in effect until the appeal goes through. And if the appeal actually goes through, that stay might be in effect for even longer. So, again, the Ninth Circuit is going to try and drag this one out for as long as humanly possible. But still, I always try and look at the brighter side of things and think that, "Hey, maybe there is a small chance here that because this clearly infringes on people's constitutional rights, the Ninth Circuit will, for once, do the right thing." I'm not hopeful of it, but it's still a possibility, and I wanted to tell you guys about that because, you know, everybody's kind of watching that date to see if that 10-day stay that Benitezput on his own order expires.

If it's allowed to expire, then, guess what, California is no longer able to enforce that ban. So we'll see what happens. We'll stay on top of it. Each time there's any type of movement, I will let you guys know. But I want to thank you all very much for watching. I really do appreciate it. Please like, subscribe. You guys have a great day.