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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.