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.

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, unfortunately, it looks like we might be headed towards another ammunition shortage. Now, we're kind of used to that in this country every time there's a major political election, anytime there's some type of civil uprising or something like that, we see the numbers start to dwindle, you know, the shelves become bare, and it becomes very hard to find and also very, very expensive. But now we have two conflicts on two different continents, and that is also causing problems. So, let's talk about what's going on and what I am seeing trending out there right now.

This channel is proud to be sponsored by the USCCA. If you carry for your own protection, you need a USCCA membership. With your membership, you get that self-defense liability, which is absolutely priceless. So, if you are interested, check out the link in the description box. Let's get to it.

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here. Sometimes there's just panic-induced buying, right? We see that all the time. In 2008, 2012, 2016, I mean, we saw the toilet paper panic of 2021, where people had their entire garages filled with toilet paper. I mean, I saw some people who got storage units just for toilet paper, and that's all it was there for, and it was stacked floor to ceiling. I mean, enough toilet paper to last 150 years. But they bought it thinking, "Well, they might not be able to get it again for a while." So they bought more than they ever could possibly need, and sometimes that happens again with ammunition. This time, it seems to be based a little bit more in reality when it comes to a potential shortage, not a shortage so much that there's just nothing on the shelves because people are running out and they're getting it.

It seems like because, again, we have two conflicts on two different continents while being in an election year. Okay, we have the trifecta of "Holy crap" going on right now, and so, while it is still available at this moment, I'm seeing things like this Reddit post that says that Lake City is no longer going to be shipping any commercial orders. Now, to my knowledge, Lake City is one of the, if not the biggest manufacturer in the entire country. So, if there was a commercial supply chain interruption from Lake City, it would have a massive ripple effect across the country. So, shelves would obviously take a hit just from that. We've already seen shortages when it comes to steel case and things that are more affordable. Everything out there is already hyperinflated, so if that were to happen, you could see what would happen from there. You would see another massive price jump, you would see less on the shelves, and that right there would cause that same type of toilet paper panic that we saw before, where people would get out and try and get what they could.

So, this is what I'm seeing. I've gone online, I've researched, I went to a bunch of places, and it's still there. But the amount that's sold out is probably triple of what it was when I looked two months ago. Two months ago, you would find at least one, maybe two pages of bulk items that you could see that were in stock, and the prices were still inflated, but not as bad as they were a couple of years ago. But they were there, right? I just went and looked today, and some of the pages, some of the websites that I went to only had half of a page of in-stock inventory. So, it went from two or three full pages of in-stock inventory to half a page of bulk in-stock inventory. So, that right there, for me, is an indicator that there is either limited supply or people are just seeing what's going on, they're absorbing everything, and they're getting what they can now.

Now, as you all know, you should be stocking up throughout the year. This isn't something that should surprise you. If it caught you off guard and it surprised you and you don't have anything, then you kind of did it wrong. You should be going throughout the year and investing a little bit here and there, and kind of building things up as you go so that if something like this does happen, you're prepared for it, that you have things stocked up around the place, and you don't have to worry as much as somebody who didn't pay attention.

So, for me, I've never been a proponent of panic buying, but at the same time, it's best to let people know there are people out there who are on a very tight budget and they are not able to get as much as they want, and once it dries up, they may have only a few boxes here or there, and then that's it. And so, sometimes it's best just to let people know what the trend is, what we're seeing, and what some people are saying because, again, if it's true and we stop seeing these commercial orders go out, then that's going to be huge. I mean, that's going to be a big problem, again, like I said, with the conflicts and an election year. I mean, it's, you know, I mean, I don't know if you guys saw the movie "The Perfect Storm," but it's kind of like that.

Now, another thing I want to mention is it seems like every area is affected in different ways. I talk to some people in certain states who say, "We don't have a problem here at all." Other people in other states who say, "I can't find a single thing whatsoever." And so, it seems like, you know, depending on how many people, what the population is like, how many shops are actually there, it's kind of a different effect for everybody in a different state or a different city across this country. The best thing to do is just simply call your shop and say, "Hey, you know, have you noticed any different trends or anything changing? Are you guys still looking good?" And if they say they're looking good, I wouldn't really worry about it. Just, you know, kind of move on. Don't do the panic thing where you go and max out your credit card for absolutely no reason. Again, just, you know, small as you go will build it up over time.

But, again, you know, this is just something I want to make you guys aware of. I want to thank you all very much for watching. I really do appreciate it. Please like, subscribe. You guys have a great day.

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 it's fairly evident that the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has absolutely no respect for at least one of your rights. They made that perfectly clear yesterday when the en banc panel decided that they were going to stay Judge Benitez’s second order in Duncan V Bonta. Judge Benitez placed an injunction against California's enforcement of what they consider to be so-called high-capacity magazines, a completely arbitrary number of 10 was chosen. Nobody knows who chose it, but for some reason, that seems to be the number that everybody has settled on. Anything more than that is bad and not good to go. So you see that number across the country a lot.

But what's surprising here is how far the ninth circuit will actually go to support California and its infringements on your second amendment rights. There was a new document that was just released today, and this new document gives us some insight as to what the ninth circuit is planning on doing here, and I got to tell you it's nothing good. It's nothing good. So stay tuned, let's talk about it.

Hey, real quick, I want to thank you all very much for watching. I really do appreciate it. I am on my final push to 500,000 subscribers, half a million subscribers. I honestly never thought that I would ever say that. When I had 10 subscribers, I was extremely excited and thrilled and happy to be doing what I was doing. At the time, there wasn't really anybody talking about California laws or anything like that, to be honest with you. So I tried to push myself out there to let people know what was going on, and we've been growing, and now we're really, really close to hitting that 500,000 mark. So if you are not subscribed and you're watching this video, it would mean the world to me if you would hit that subscribe button. It's free, it only takes a second, but it gets us just that little bit closer to that 500,000 mark.

Okay, let's go and talk about what's going on here, and this one is absolutely going to make your head spin. But it also shows us exactly what the ninth circuit is up to here. The ninth circuit, after yesterday where they stayed Judge Benitez's order, decided that they were going to ask the parties, the plaintiffs, and the defendants for briefs in this case. Not really that big of a deal, right? You've got to submit a brief to the ninth circuit. But one of the questions that they asked to be submitted in their brief was whether or not the en banc panel should even have heard this in the first place. Maybe it should have gone to the three-judge panel. So they want the plaintiffs and the defendants in this case to actually submit a brief and state whether or not the complete en banc panel should even have heard it. It's unbelievably mind-numbing.

Let me go ahead and read this to you just real quick, and then I'll explain what that means for this case. Okay, so it says here, the parties shall adhere to the time schedule order issued on September 25, 2023. In addition to addressing the merits, which is the only thing that they should really be doing here, the parties shall address whether the en banc panel that heard the determined appeal has statutory authority under 28 USC 46C to decide this appeal, including when a case or controversy in the court of appeals may be heard and determined or reheard and redetermined by the en banc court rather than by the three-judge panel and when senior judges may participate in an en banc decision.

So what the ninth circuit is actually doing here, and this is stunning, is they are telling the plaintiffs, "Can you please tell us whether or not we did our job right? And if you don't think we did our job right, can you tell us why?" That's what that says. They don't know if what they did in determining that appeal for a stay was even the correct process. They don't even know. So they're asking the parties whether or not they think they did their job right.

Now, that might seem kind of confusing to some people, but I have a theory, and others also have a theory as to why they're doing this. It's all part of the delay tactic. So it went up to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court said, "Hey, we're going to reverse and remand this back down to you." Well, in order to delay as long as possible, instead of just rehearing it with the three-judge panel or en banc, they sent it all the way back down to Judge Benitez.

Pay attention here, Judge Benitez had to go through all the discovery, testimony, arguments, and everything else and come up with a completely new order. 72 pages. Then that goes back up to the ninth circuit. The ninth circuit decides to skip the three-judge panel. They decide to hear it themselves. Now, in issuing their stay, they only issued a six-page order, just a quick six-page order, and it was a really interesting balancing approach that they used to get there because they didn't have their arguments all squared away.

So now, by asking the plaintiffs and the defendants to figure out whether or not what they did was right, what they could do now is they can actually redetermine it down to the three-judge panel. So now, instead of the ninth circuit just hearing this case on appeal, they're going to send it back down to the three-judge panel for the three-judge panel to take another look at this. More briefs, more discovery, more testimony, more everything. And so after that, let's say that the three-judge panel says, "Yeah, we find, like Judge Benitez, that it's unconstitutional." Now, it can go back up to the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals again for even further arguments, testimony, and everything else that you need to do there. So basically what they're doing here is they're opening up a pathway to send it back to the three-judge panel to be done again before it goes back again to the ninth circuit and then, who knows, even potentially up to the Supreme Court.

So if the Supreme Court actually gets this, if it ends up there, I think that they're going to completely side with the Second Amendment on this one. The ninth circuit is just absolutely out of control with the way that they've been operating lately. Not even following their own procedures. And then when they don't follow their procedures, asking others if they did the right thing or not. It's stunning. So anyway, I wanted to share that with you because, again, when it comes to the ninth circuit, nothing really shocks me anymore. But I found this actually pretty surprising because I think once SCOTUS actually gets this, if it ends up there, I think that they're going to completely side with the Second Amendment on this one. The ninth circuit is just absolutely out of control with the way that they've been operating lately, not even following their own procedures and then when they don't follow their procedures, asking others if they did the right thing or not. It's stunning.

So anyway, I wanted to share that with you. It's a big old delay tactic. That's what we're watching right now, and I want to thank you all very much for watching. You guys have a great day.

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, an unfortunate update in Duncan V Bonta today, and honestly, I got to start this video by saying how pissed would you be if you were Judge Benitez, a federal judge who has heard this case twice, heard all of the arguments twice, all the discovery, all the testimony, wrote two orders, each one enjoining California's ban on so-called high-capacity magazines? You went through all of that work, months and months of work, and then the Ninth Circuit basically just says, "Nope, we're just going to go ahead and stay your order."

Now, why did they say they're going to stay the order? Because it would just do too much undo harm to the state of California. Let's talk about what happened. So, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has once again shown that they deserve to be called the Ninth Circus Court of Appeals. The reason is because they're the most overturned court in the entire country, and this is exactly why.

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals skipped an entire step, the three-judge panel. They said, "Forget about it. We're just going to hear this en banc." They decided to take it en banc and without even really determining the merits of the case at all. Because they have to look at the merits of this case to determine whether or not the plaintiffs have a likelihood of winning on those merits, and then they have to judge whether or not they should give the injunction based on that. But instead, they did the interest balancing approach, even though that's exactly at odds with what the Supreme Court told them that they need to do from now on. So, they decided to stay Judge Benitez’s injunction.

So, that means what they're going to have to do now is they're going to have to go through the entire case, continue on with it, and people are going to have to do basically the same process all over again. And the Ninth Circuit is going to have to now argue this case, but the thing is they just ignored absolutely everything. I'm upset. I'm pretty pissed, but I'm really not all that surprised, as I'm sure you're not all that surprised either because this is what the Ninth Circuit does.

They completely ignore everything, and they go with what they want to see happen. They go with their own preferred outcome rather than actually following the law or looking at the Constitution and the way that it's written and text history and tradition and doing things the right way to uphold the rule of law. They have chosen their own given path, and that's the path that they're going to end at, regardless of what it takes for them to get there.

Their activism is coming out. They see the Second Amendment as a second-class right. They have treated it that way since the very beginning, and they continue to do so even in the light of the Supreme Court telling them basically that they are wrong, in the light of a district court judge, a well-respected district court judge who has looked at everything now twice and wrote a 72-page order proving why it should be enjoined, and they just wipe it up. They just two weeks, it's gone.

This guy took months to write that order, and in a matter of weeks, it's just gone. So, that just tells you right there that they don't really care about the rule of law, nor the Constitution or your rights. Some are preferred rights, some are not preferred rights to them, and they'll just decide to do whatever they want, just based on the whims of their own outcome. That's what the Ninth Circuit really is all about.

Try to keep in mind, Duncan V Bonta is far from over. This is not the end. That doesn't mean that it just goes away from here. This means that now the Ninth Circuit still has to hear this case. And if they just go against everything that's happened up until this point and they decide to rule in favor of the State of California like they most typically do, then we still have the Supreme Court after that.

After all the shenanigans that have been played here where they're skipping processes and changing things and not looking at the merits, then I see a very good likelihood that the Supreme Court's going to take this up. If the Supreme Court takes this up, which is what I've said in other videos, I think the Supreme Court's going to say no, that you're not allowed to place a capacity limitation on stuff like this as protected by the Second Amendment. I don't think they're allowed to do that.

I think that we could end up seeing something that ends up being a win for the entire country here. Other than that, this is just another stall tactic by the Ninth Circuit to put a little bit more time behind it, and that's pretty much it. So, we'll see what happens from here, but it is definitely not over.

There were dissenting judges, judges who are very upset with the decision that was made to stay that order by Judge Medas. So, there's some really upset dissenting judges that basically say that this court is illegitimate, and that's the end of it right there. I will keep you guys updated if there's anything else that changes.

I want to thank you all very much for watching. I really do appreciate it. Please like, subscribe, and you guys have a great day.

There have been quite a few developments in Duncan v. Bonta over the past few weeks after Judge Benitez Ruled California's mag ban was unconstitutional and place an injunction against its enforcement. Now at the 9th circuit we will know what its fate is tomorrow.

-- USCCA - https://www.uscca.com/copperjacket

Social Media

INSTAGRAM - https://www.instagram.com/thedailysho...

Check out my Merch, Shirts, Mugs and More!

https://teespring.com/dashboard/stores

NOTICE: I am "NOT" a lawyer, and this should not be considered legal advice. These are my opinions.

(DISCLAIMER: This post may contain paid advertisements or affiliate links. What is an affiliate link? It means that if you click on one of the product links, Copper Jacket TV will receive a small commission at no extra cost to you. This helps support the channel and allows awesome future content. Thank you for the support!

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've got an update for you in Duncan v. Bonta, which is the case that's challenging California's magazine ban. Now there's been a lot of new developments over the past few weeks and a lot of things to cover, but there is a very important date coming up just tomorrow, so let's talk about what's going on.

Hey, real quick, I want to thank you all very much for watching. I really do appreciate it. We're on the final push here to 500,000 subscribers, and it is really exciting. I've been doing this for almost 11 years now, and to see that 500,000 number creeping so close, it's really something that I'm looking forward to. Hopefully, it'll happen by the end of the year. So if you're not subscribed yet, consider hitting that subscribe button and that little bell notification. It's free, it only takes a second, but it helps me out quite a bit. So with that being said, let's get to the video.

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here. This has got to be one of the strangest, most odd, and unprecedented cases that I have followed since starting this channel nearly 11 years ago. The entire thing started as Duncan V. Baccera down at the Southern District Court of California in front of Judge Roger T Benitez. Now after hearing all of the arguments and the testimony and Discovery, Judge Benitez did find, in fact, that that law is unconstitutional. So he placed an injunction against it, which gave Californians their first Freedom week. Let me tell you, it was an incredible week. There were no restrictions, no capacity bans, nothing like that. People could get whatever they want, and they whipped out their credit cards and emptied their bank accounts to do so. I heard estimates that there were millions that were brought into the state during that one week period. So it was absolutely incredible.

Obviously, the state of California didn't like that very much, so they decided to appeal to the ninth circuit. Now eventually, the ninth circuit did grant a permanent stay against Judge Benitez's injunction. First, it was heard by a three-judge panel, which is the way that it's supposed to happen. Right, three-judge panel heard it. Well, guess what? The three-judge panel also determined that it was unconstitutional. So, California, not liking that, went on to the en banc ninth circuit, which is the entire panel. And them being the activists that they are, in the most overturned court in the country, they decided that, in fact, it is constitutional. They're going to weigh the state's interest against your rights and determined that the state's interests outweigh your rights.

Not liking that very much, Duncan decided, "Hey, we're going to go to the Supreme Court." This goes up to the Supreme Court and it sits there for quite a while. That's all because the Supreme Court was already determining Bruin. So, they were waiting on that decision. After that decision came down, the Supreme Court decided to vacate the ninth circuit's order and remand it back down to them. Now, instead of just kind of rehashing everything out post-Bruin, they being the activists that they are, decided to do a stall tactic. They're going to send it all the way back down to the district court and in front of Judge Benitez to hear it again.

Judge Benitez goes through the whole process using text history and tradition that was already established in Bruin and in Heller. He decided that, again, it's unconstitutional. He used the same test the first time, so it's not going to be any different this time. This time, he placed a stay on his own injunction. So his injunction placed a stay on his injunction. This time it goes back up to the ninth circuit because of an appeal from California. Except this time they skip the three-judge panel again. It has to go to the same three, or typically goes to the same three-judge panel that heard it the first time. That three-judge panel found that it was unconstitutional. So they decide, "Hey, we're just going to skip them. We don't want to go through that process." It goes to the entire, straight from Benitez to the entire en banc panel of the ninth circuit. Why did they do that? Well, obviously, with all of the activist judges that are on that bench, they want to side with the state again. They want to find a way to make sure that they can side with the state and twist the words of Bruin to try and benefit them.

Now with that being said, they placed a stay on that injunction that Benitez gave this time until the 10th of October. Now the ninth circuit en banc panel told the defendants and the plaintiffs in this case that they had to have their brief filed by the 2nd of October so that they could come up with a decision on whether or not to permanently stay this injunction by the 10th. So that means that as of this video at the time I'm filming this video, tomorrow is the date that the ninth circuit has to come up with their decision. That means that they have to show their hand and show their cards by tomorrow. If the ninth circuit just decides that they're just going to be continuing to be the activist court that they are, then they're going to find some way to place a stay tomorrow on Benitez' permanent stay on Benitez' order.

But they're going to have to have some way of backing that up. If they don't, then Judge Benitez's order, the stay on his order is going to expire tomorrow. Well, not Judge Benitez's stay, but the ninth circuit's stay on Judge Benitez's order is going to expire tomorrow. That means that the following day, if the injunction is allowed to stay, people are going to have another Freedom week, and this is going to be allowed to stand. Now do I think that's going to happen? I'm not really sure. I don't think so, okay, just the way that the ninth circuit has been acting lately. I think that they're going to find a way to side with California on this one and say there's just going to be some type of irreparable harm, and they're not going to be able to do it. So they're going to place an in a stay, a permanent stay on that injunction. So that's kind of where I think this is going.

But at least there is a chance that his injunction might be allowed to take effect. So either way, we are going to see where the ninth circuit actually stands post-Bruin, because remember, this is a case that was already in front of the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court saw it. They decided that, "Hey, post-Bruin, you might want to take another look at this." And sent it back down to the ninth, who again just played these time-delayed tactics by sending it down to Benitez and going through the whole process all over again. So now they know that the Supreme Court has already pretty much said, "You got it wrong. You got it wrong. You're going to have to take a look at it. You're going to have to take a look at it through the light of text history and tradition and then come up with your decision. So they didn't necessarily tell them, "Hey, you got it wrong, do it over and do it so that you say that California's law is unconstitutional," but they pretty much said, "You need to look at it again because the way that you did it was wrong."

And that could lead to some type of Freedom week, but I don't know if that necessarily will happen or whether the injunction will be allowed to stay till the end of the case altogether. But here's what I do think: I think that the ninth circuit, even if they side with the state of California, which is the most likely outcome here and says that California's law is constitutional and backed up, I still think this is going to end up back in front of the Supreme Court. Since it was already there once and we've had all this indecision, I think that the Supreme Court is going to take it. If they do, I think we're going to see magazines just become free all across the country, and any magazine ban that you see across the country get struck down by this. I think that's the end game here.

I think that maybe even the ninth circuit and maybe even California knows that. So again, I'm not sure if that plays in our favor or not, but tomorrow is a very, very big day. This is the day where we're going to see exactly what the ninth circuit has learned from this being kicked back down to them again. The most overturned court in the entire country or the most overturned appellate court in the entire country. So again, we get to see now what the ninth circuit is willing to change post-Bruin. So pay attention to the news tomorrow because it's either going to be great news (which there's a small chance of) or it's going to be bad news, and we have to move forward. But regardless, tomorrow is a very big day in the state of California that everybody across this country should be paying attention to. So I want to thank you all very much for watching. I really do appreciate it. Please like, subscribe, and you guys have a great day.