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.

In the introduction of his order in the case of Miller v. Bonta, Judge Benitez had some words for the judges that would read the opinion after him. Namely the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals judges that will most certainly take the case on appeal.

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. So in response to Miller v. Bonta, it looks like Judge Benitez finally told the judges of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals what's what. I mean, he almost went as far as to simply call them cowards. Let's talk about what he wrote.

This video is proud to be sponsored by Scheels, in my opinion, the greatest outdoor adventure sports and active lifestyle store that you will ever visit. With some of the best experts on hand to answer all of your questions and with 30 locations across the country, there's probably one close to you that you can visit. Shields is your retail destination for sports, outdoors, and fashion, with unrivaled passion for their field. Each of Scheels sales associates are expertly trained to give you the best in-store experience. They have to be experts out of the store before Scheels will call them experts in the store. Not only does Scheels have a huge selection of everything you're looking for for outdoors, hunting, archery, activewear, but they also have a Scheels guarantee: everything you buy at Scheels, on sale or otherwise, is guaranteed satisfactory or your money back. So visit your local Scheels or visit them online to see what everybody's talking about and to take advantage of some of the best deals.

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here. So when Judge Benitez issued his order in Miller v. Bon, which again is a case that challenges California's ban on so-called assault weapons, it would be appealed up to the Ninth Circuit. Now, it was appealed pretty much immediately. California was ready for that order. Not only did California appeal it just moments after the order came down, they also updated their website to say that the ban was still in place just moments after the order came out. So they were ready, and they knew what was coming because I think California knows that what they're doing is totally unconstitutional, but they just simply don't care, and they're going to drag this out as long as possible.

But again, it was appealed on the same day, knowing that it was going to go before the judges of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. Judge Bonta wrote some pretty interesting stuff at the very beginning of his order. So let's read that real quick.

Now, the first part of his order, which is the introduction, really kind of lends credence to why people call him St. Bonita. It says, "Introduction: Like the Bowie knife, which was commonly carried by citizens and soldiers in the 1800s, so-called assault weapons are dangerous but useful. But unlike the Bowie knife, the United States Supreme Court has said there is a long tradition of widespread lawful gun ownership by private individuals in this country. Americans have an individual right to keep and bear arms. The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution guarantees the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation. Whether citizens ever fire or need to fire their weapons is not important. This guarantee is fully binding on the states and limits their ability to devise solutions to social problems. And the guarantee protects the possession of weapons that are in common use or arms that are typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes. These are the decisions this court is bound to apply."

Now here's where I feel like he is directly addressing the judges of the Ninth Circuit. It says, "It is our duty as judges to interpret the constitution based on the text and original understanding of the relevant provisions, not on public policy considerations or worse, for fear of approbium or criticism from the political branches. This case is about California laws that, in contrast to these constitutional principles, make it a crime to acquire and possess many common semi-automatic firearms."

Now, I know that seemed kind of low-key and not so in-your-face, but I guarantee you the judges that are reading this totally get what he's trying to say here. If we take a look at the word "approbium," it means harsh criticism or censure. So he's telling them to stop being so afraid of being criticized or censured by speaking out. Don't be afraid to do your job. Just do your damn job. Take a look, we have a duty, he says. We have a duty as judges to look at the Constitution in terms of its text and its original understanding. That's the way that we're supposed to do things. But if you're afraid of policy or you're afraid of criticism from political parties, which is another thing that definitely affects the Ninth Circuit being that California is controlled almost solely by the left, they are afraid that they're going to be criticized by them. They're going to be called everything that they recently called Judge Benitez, and some of them don't want that. So they might be afraid to speak out or at least follow the Constitution as the rule of law versus the state's own policy and what the state wants.

He's kind of scolding the Ninth Circuit here, saying, "Hey, this is the way we're supposed to do it. This is the way that you've been doing it. Stop being so afraid to do your job and just do it based on the Constitution, not your own personal fears or what somebody might say about you."

I wish all judges were like Judge Benitez. I mean, there's a reason that people in California call him St. Benitez. He takes his own personal thoughts and feelings and beliefs out of it and just simply looks at the Constitution the way that it was written, the understanding of it at the time, and he also looks at Supreme Court precedent. He applies it correctly, knowing that it's going to be overturned by the Ninth Circuit, but he does it anyway.

But at least this time, even though it would be very easy to miss, he kind of told the Ninth Circuit, "You're doing it wrong," and he gave them that little message right there in the introduction. I wanted to share that with you because, again, he's one of the best. I mean, this guy right here, if I could just meet him and shake his hand, it would probably be one of the best days of my life because he's always stood up for the rights of people in that state. So again, I thought that was pretty big, even though it was easy to miss. It was his little way of kind of taking a jab at the Ninth Circuit, and I wanted to share with you.

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.

On October 19 Judge Benitez gave his decision in Miller v. Bonta which placed an injunction on a 30 year old law in California. The Governor was not happy with this decision at all and decided to let that be known on twitter.

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. So the governor of California, well, he had a pretty bad day yesterday. For the second time in a row, in only about a one-month period, another one of his absolute favorite gun control laws was found unconstitutional. So he's pretty pissed. Now, the thing is, I don't understand why he's so mad. There's a stay on the injunction that started the moment the injunction did. It's going to be headed up to the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the ninth circuit is in bed with the state of California, so everything's looking good for him. But I think he's pissed because he knows that we are going to win in the end.

But instead of taking it out on anybody else, who does he decide to take it out on? Well, he decides to go Full Tilt against Judge Benitez. You are not going to believe what he says about the judge. Got some tweets, got some responses, so let's talk about it.

Hey, real quick, if you're new to the channel or you watch these videos and you haven't yet subscribed, consider subscribing. We're on our final push to 500,000, and with that being said, I want to thank everybody out there for watching these videos. So let's go and get to it.

Okay, so let's go and talk about what Newsome said about Judge Benitez. Now, trying to keep in mind, Judge Benitez was simply following the law, the law that is written in the Constitution. He was following Supreme Court precedent in Heller and McDonald, and in Bruen, he was also following guidance from the Supreme Court when they said you must look at text, history, and tradition. So applying all of those things, he took a look at the arguments in this case and came out with his decision, which is exactly the same decision that he made the very first time he heard Miller. Now, again, he also used that same formula when he came out with his decision in Duncan as well, which made the government pretty mad that time also.

So let me go ahead and read this tweet to you guys real quick because I think it's honestly it's bordering on slanderous. So at 4:44 p.m. on October 19th, 2023, Newsom writes this: "Today, a right-wing NRA puppet judge Roger Benitez tried to strip away California's three-decade-old assault weapons ban, comparing an assault weapon to a knife. An absolute disgrace. This is exactly why America needs a constitutional amendment to enshrine Common Sense gun safety reforms. Until then, extremist judges will continue to tear down the will of the American people."

And real quick, I just want to point out the FPC's response here. You guys could read that for yourself. It's a good one.

Okay, so apparently, simply upholding the rule of law and upholding the Constitution makes you a puppet. In that tweet, he says multiple times that he's an extremist. But what's more extreme: the guy who is upholding the rule of law through the Constitution, right upholding our Constitution which is what you swore to do when you put your hand on that Bible, or the guy who is trying to actively campaign to have one of our amendments essentially erased and replaced with something that allows the government to intrude on our constitutional rights? So again, I ask you, what's more extreme: the person who's upholding our original founding document, the one that created the country that we're in today, or the person who is just constantly going around trying to change it?

So that's what it's like dealing with California politics. If you disagree with what they're doing, if you don't like what they're doing, they're just simply going to throw mud at you and call you names. It's all very, very childish. You know, it doesn't show you that this person right here has a head on their shoulders that allows them reasonable thought. It's that you stop me from doing something the Constitution stopped me from doing something, and so I'm going to call everybody all sorts of different names and make them look bad like they're puppets until, you know, I can somehow discredit them. And that's kind of what it boils down to. The sad thing is it hasn't always been that way in California. Unfortunately, it's been that way for a while. So now, only an entire generation, that's all they've ever known in that state. But prior to that, California was booming. That's where people wanted to go, that's where people wanted to be. They wanted to move the economy, everything else. It was a great place to be, and then it was a slow decline that led to what you're seeing here today.

Governors get mad when the Constitution is upheld, which to me is just absolutely ridiculous. So anyway, I wanted to share that with you. Again, I think it's just completely childish but totally expected. I want to thank you all very much for watching. I do appreciate it. Please like, subscribe. You guys have a great day.

The decision is finally in. The case of Miller v. Bonta has been decided by Judge Benitez. This case has been before Benitez for quite some time. As a matter of fact this is the 2nd time he has heard Miller. California's so called "assault weapon" ban has been overturned.

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. So I just wanted to jump in front of the camera real quick and give you guys some breaking news. We finally have a decision in Miller V Bonta, the case that's challenging California's so-called assault weapons ban. Let's talk about what's going on.

Hey, real quick, if you're new to the channel or you watch these videos and you haven't yet subscribed, consider subscribing. We're on our final push to 500,000. With that being said, I want to thank everybody out there for watching these videos. So let's go and get to it.

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here. We've been waiting for the Miller decision for quite a while now. This one is another huge one in the state of California. This time, Judge Benitez, who also just recently gave his decision in Duncan, wrote a 78 or 79 page order this time, so he is extremely thorough, just like he is with everything else that he touches. So let's go ahead and take a look at his order and see what he did.

Okay, so let's just go ahead and dive right into the bottom right here. This is the conclusion that will tell us what his decision was. It says, "Plaintiffs in this case challenge California penal code section 30515 A 1-8, defining a 'assault weapon' by prohibited features. It is declared that these statutes unconstitutionally infringe on the second amendment rights of American citizens. These statutes and the penalty provisions in 30600, 30605, 308Z as applied to 'assault weapons' banned defined in 30515 1-8 are hereby enjoined." So Benitez placed an injunction on the assault weapons ban in the state of California.

So let's continue reading here. It says, "Judgment is entered for the plaintiffs. The Attorney General respectfully requests a stay of any judgment in plaintiffs' favor for a sufficient period to seek a stay from the court of appeals. That request is granted. Therefore, the enforcement of the injunction is hereby stayed for 10 days. The following injunction will be entered."

What does that all mean? Well, Miller, like Duncan, was remanded back down to Benitez after being at the ninth circuit. Now, Miller never made its way up to the Supreme Court; that one was at the 9th when the Bruen decision came down. So post-Bruen, they set it back down to Benitez to take a look at it again. Just like in Duncan, he took a look at it, got all the new evidence, used the text, history, and tradition the first time around, he looked at all the evidence, all the testimony, and everything else, and wrote his 78-page order saying that, again, he finds this unconstitutional. Now, because of procedural issues and stuff is why I think he did it, he stayed his own order. He could have let the injunction go and just let California try and get their appeal from the ninth circuit, but I think in doing that, the ninth circuit is more inclined to grant an emergency stay if things are kind of all over the place like that. So maybe it gives a better chance of the ninth circuit not granting the appeal and granting another stay, but we've seen what the ninth circuit has done recently. The ninth circuit, just like what they did with Duncan, doesn't really care about the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment, or law for that matter. They've shown that it's pretty much all about activism and they'll do what they want. So I'm really curious to see what the ninth circuit is going to do with this one because with all of the light that was shed on the ninth circuit because of Duncan, they're really in the spotlight right now. They're not just in the spotlight from us, but they're in the spotlight from the court system in general. So the Supreme Court is going to be seeing this. If we don't get a favorable outcome here in the ninth circuit, then the Supreme Court is going to have to take a look at what the ninth circuit's been up to. I think they know that, and potentially that might work in our favor. But the ninth circuit has not been helpful when it comes to the Second Amendment. As a matter of fact, the ninth circuit never sides with us. Post-Bruen, I was really hoping that we would see a lot of massive changes there. They have to look at text, history, and tradition. They can't use the two-step approach; they can't use state interest balancing approaches. But they've been doing it anyway. They did it with Duncan, and now here they're going to have the potential to do it again with Miller. So I'm not super optimistic this time.

But what happened was we have another District Judge taking a look at this case for a second time, saying that you are infringing on people's constitutional rights, Americans' constitutional rights, and here's the reasons why I say that, 78 pages worth of reasons why I'm saying that. So I am placing an injunction against enforcement of this law. The only reason that I'm staying that enforcement is so that California has some procedural time to ask for a stay from the ninth circuit. If that time expires, then the law would be unenforceable in the state of California. We'll see what happens. Obviously, California had this ready in hand. They have their appeal to the ninth circuit ready in hand. They didn't need 10 days. I guarantee you they have that appeal ready, and it's going up to the ninth circuit for an emergency stay right now. So again, we're just going to pay close attention to this one and see what happens next and see how far the ninth circuit is willing to go to fumble around with this one and delay it as much as they did with Duncan. But hey, if there's any light at the end of the tunnel, at least the cases have been moving forward. We have been waiting for a long time, since 2017-2018 for these cases, six going on seven years for some of these cases just trying to get some type of resolution. So at least, at a minimum, we have another piece of the puzzle done, and now it's up at the higher courts. We are close to the end on this one, and again, I think in the end, we're going to win. But we'll see what happens. Anyway, I want to thank you all very much for watching. I really do appreciate it. Please like, subscribe, have a great day.

The 9th Circuit Court in Baird v. Bonta reversed and remanded the district courts order denying an injunction. When doing so on September 7th the 9th said the district must issue its NEW decision quickly which it has failed to do and now its causing problems and Bairds attorneys are getting involved.

DO NOT try anything you see in this video at home. All work should be performed by a trained professional. Disclaimer: These videos are strictly for educational and entertainment purposes only. Imitation or the use of anything demonstrated in my videos is done AT YOUR OWN RISK.. These videos are free to watch and if anyone attempts to charge for this video notify us immediately.Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV.

So today I have a very important update for you in Beard v. Bon, which is the case that challenges California's ban on open carry. Last month, I made a video talking about an important decision by the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that actually reversed a District Court judge's opinion that there should not be an injunction against enforcement of California's ban on open carry. The District Court judge in that case basically took this case and said, "Well, I don't like it. I don't like open carry. I think it's dangerous, it doesn't really serve the public good, so I'm not even going to look at the merits of this case, just going to deny the injunction outright without even really going through the process or the steps." And so that was a problem that went up to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The 9th Circuit said, "You missed a few steps here, you didn't do things correctly. We're going to reverse your decision denying the injunction, and we're going to remand it back down to you, and you have to do this expeditiously. We want to see a decision in this case very quickly because this case has been going on for about four years now, and the plaintiffs are still waiting on whether or not they can even get a preliminary injunction, let alone a summary judgment. So there's a lot going on here, and we have a new development as of just a couple of days ago. So I want to talk to you guys about that because this could have some big implications on what happens next.

Hey, I want to thank you all very much for watching. I really do appreciate it. We are on our final push to half a million subscribers on this channel, which is awesome. I can't tell you how much I appreciate every single comment, every single thumbs up, everybody who's ever hit that subscribe button. Thank you all very much for the support. It is really difficult in this specific realm and talking about the topics that we do to try and get anywhere on a platform like this, so you guys made that happen, and I want to thank you all very much for that. If you haven't subscribed yet, if you've got an extra second, that would be fantastic. Let's hit that 500,000 soon. Let's get to the video.

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here. So it looks like the District Court is not just ignoring Bruin, but they're also ignoring the 9th Circuit. Now, we know that the 9th Circuit is not friendly to the Second Amendment. Everybody has seen what's happened recently in Duncan v. Bon, which is the mag ban case. I mean, they ignored processes there, they ignored their own rules, and used the two-step approach instead of text, history, and tradition, and sided with the state of California yet again in another attempt to delay and deny people their constitutional rights. So we know that the 9th Circuit isn't friendly, but the 9th Circuit in this case, at least, did see that the District Court didn't do its job before denying the injunction. So they again reversed and remanded the denial of the injunction back down to the District Court. Now, this happened on September 7th. It is now the 16th of October, and we have still seen nothing from the District Court. The District Court was expressly told by the 9th Circuit, "We want to see something soon. We want to see something quickly because it looks like in this case the plaintiffs have a good chance of winning on the merits." And so the District Court needs to take a look at that. But it hasn't. Again, the District Court is completely ignoring the 9th Circuit and has come out with pretty much nothing at this point. Now, there are arguments set up for November 3rd in that District Court for a summary judgment in this case. But that doesn't take away the fact that we have still been looking for an injunction until that summary judgment could come out. We have been looking for an injunction, and the court needs to address that.

So the lawyers for Beard decided that, well, we're going to take this back up to the 9th Circuit and make them aware that the District Court is ignoring their order. And so what they did is they came out with this letter right here that they sent to the 9th Circuit. I want to read this to you guys because it's very interesting. So this is a letter addressed to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, dated October 11th, 2023, from the Bellaton Law Firm, which represents Beard in Beard v. Bon. It says here, "Regarding Beard v. Bon, Your Honors, I represent the plaintiffs/appellants in the above-referenced matter. By opinion dated September 7th, 2023, this court reversed and remanded the District Court's denial of appellants' motion for a preliminary injunction for failing to apply the proper preliminary injunction standard for a case raising a constitutional challenge, specifically the District Court abused its discretion by declining to assess appellants' likelihood of success on the merits of their Second Amendment claim. The District Court was instructed to complete its re-evaluation of the requested preliminary injunction and issue a decision expeditiously, as this case has been ongoing for more than four years. The court may recall that the state's opposition to appellants' preliminary injunction motion contained no historical evidence. The state relied solely on public safety anecdotes to justify its regulations, which should have resulted in a prompt decision from the District Court upon remand. In light of the test in NYSRPA v. Bruin, 35 days have passed (and now it's actually been more, but it says here 35 days have passed) since the court's instruction to the District Court, yet no decision has been rendered. The parties are also in the midst of briefing their respective motions for summary judgment. The return date is November 3rd, 2023. Appellants posit that the District Court may delay determination of the preliminary injunction motion until the summary judgment motions are fully submitted and/or decided. Appellants further believe that the District Court may search for information outside the four corners of the preliminary injunction motion to reach its decision. Appellants respectfully request that the court issue further instructions to the District Court accordingly. Thank you for your attention and consideration."

In California, the court system is stacked so hard against us that we have to now go back to the 9th Circuit and say, "Hey, the court's not even listening to you, right? You're the highest court in California. You cover pretty much the entire western part of the United States, and the District Court won't even listen to your orders." We think what they're trying to do here is they're trying to delay us until possibly late November, after everything has been filed, and they have a chance to figure out whether or not they're going to issue a summary judgment or not, in which case then they might tell us about whether or not they're willing to grant an injunction in this case. At the time of this letter, which was at the 11th, at that time it had been 35 days since the court ordered the District Court to come up with a decision expeditiously, which it has not.

In California, they ban open carry, which is clearly unconstitutional with the laws surrounding concealed carry being so difficult to actually do that you need to have one form for somebody to be able to defend themselves in their constitutionally protected ways as they leave their home in California. That is extremely difficult. So this court knows that and they're simply denying everything upfront, moving around with their activism and ignoring other court's decisions. They ignored Bruin, they didn't look at text, history, and tradition, they simply looked at the two-step approach and public safety and state's interest, and they didn't look at the merits of the case and whether or not the plaintiffs have a likelihood of winning on those merits. They just simply ignored all of that and said, "We're going to deny your injunction."

The 9th Circuit being the court that they are is really surprising, says, "Even you can't do that." So we're going to go ahead, and we're going to send this back down to you, and we want to hear a decision on this really quick so that it can probably go back up to us. And then, you know, we can put a stay on the injunction, but at least you need to do your job, so we don't look bad up here. That's not happening right now. Now, with all the press and everything being highlighted that's wrong with the 9th Circuit right now, I actually think, and this is again just me trying to be optimistic, I actually think that the 9th Circuit, if this judge is forced to grant an injunction in this case, and then California asks for a stay on that injunction with the 9th Circuit, I think the 9th Circuit, wanting to kind of move some of or shift some of its focus away from its recent decisions, might actually not grant that stay on the injunction. And so we could get lucky and see open carry allowed back in California very soon. I think in the end, I think we're going to see Duncan and Miller and Bar and Roie and all of these cases. All of them are going to be overturned eventually. I think whether they end up at the 9th Circuit en banc or whether they go up to the Supreme Court, I think we're going to be seeing a ton of wins in California very soon. But California is just really, really good. The California court system is really, really good at delaying things and making things bounce around through existence. So I think we're going to see a win in these, but this particular one, we might see a win fairly soon. So, and hopefully so, the people of California have been without their rights for far too long, and it's time that the courts actually hold up the rule of law, which is written in our constitution, instead of what their own activism tells them that they would like to see happen, their own personal feelings and favoritism as the outcome, rather than, again, the rule of law, which they swore an oath to uphold and protect.

So again, it's just another delay tactic. This is all just delay tactics and semantics to get the outcome that they want. But the court is absolutely ignoring the 9th Circuit. They're ignoring all precedent, and they're just doing what they want. That's kind of how things work in California, and it's sad to see because they're supposed to be impartial, and they're not. And this is clearly showing you that they're not. I wanted to let you guys know about that. I'm hoping that we'll get a response from the 9th Circuit on this one soon, and the 9th Circuit will tell that judge, "Hey, it's been a month and a half. It's time for the decision now. You need to come up with that decision or else we will." That's what I want to hear. And we'll see what happens from there. But anyway, again, I wanted to update you guys on this case because I think open carry is at least an important part of our constitutional rights that should be addressed more often. So, again, thank you all very much for watching. Please like, subscribe. You guys have a great day.