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 if there was a competition between all 50 states to see who hated the Constitution and the Second Amendment the most, pretty sure California would be going home with that trophy, especially after what they did yesterday. Let's talk about it.

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. So I don't think it's any big secret: the California politicians absolutely loathe the Second Amendment. They cannot stand that it's this impenetrable wall that blocks them on their road to disarmament. They try to go over it; they try to go around it, but eventually, just like with all other things that are unconstitutional, they keep getting pushed behind it.

So what do they want to do? Well, they want to just take down the wall altogether, and that's what they're doing with their 28th Amendment. Newsome proposed the 28th Amendment, as everybody knows, and we all know that it's not going to work out; it's not going to go through. But they don't care; they're going to go ahead and do it anyway.

A while back, the Senate voted to approve the 28th Amendment. After that, it had to go to the assembly, and just yesterday, the California State Assembly voted on the 28th Amendment. And do you want to know how it went? It went to a vote of 54 to 14. 54 in favor and 14 not in favor. There were some people who just didn't vote, including some Democrats who kind of stayed out of it, but they voted in a majority 54 to 14 to basically, essentially erase your Second Amendment rights. If that doesn't show you right there how much they loathe the Second Amendment, then absolutely nothing will. They do not care about it; they want to see it gone.

Because this is what it's all about: it has absolutely nothing to do with trying to undermine the Second Amendment, as they're trying to strengthen the Second Amendment so that people are safe in every community in America. So California has just become the very first state in the entire country to call for a constitutional convention to add the 28th Amendment.

Now here's the thing: while we know that this is not going to work, we have over half the country right now who approves of constitutional carry. They're not going to go ahead and join in on this 28th Amendment thing, and they need three-quarters of all state legislatures in order to make this happen. So it's not going to work. But what you have to understand here is that they're showing you exactly how they feel about your right; this is exactly how they feel about it.

A vast majority of the people that run the state of California want to see a gun, and there's a little bit of delusion out there as well. As a matter of fact, the governor of that state actually believes that this does have a chance of winning, and he said that out loud. He believes that this is something that, because of polling, he says that polling shows that a majority of the country wants this, a majority of the country supports the regulation that is within the 28th Amendment. And he says that it's a vast majority, something like 86 percent of the entire country supports the things that he is trying to do through this 28th Amendment.

So again, while we know that it's not going to work, there is still a delusion out there that this has a chance of actually making it through. Now let's just play Devil's Advocate and say that other states are jumping on board with this. What would need to happen? Well, you would have to have three-quarters of the state's legislatures also vote to have a constitutional convention and then decide to take up this 28th Amendment.

So first, you have to create the convention, right? You have to have three-quarters of the state's legislatures vote to have a convention to begin with. Now each one of those states that votes to have a convention can actually bring up their own things within that Convention as well. So if they wanted to make any changes to the Constitution, they have every right to do it as well. They would be able to make whatever changes they wanted to, like for instance, National reciprocity or constitutional carry if they wanted to somehow solidify that within the Constitution, a state could do that. They could add that to it; it just doesn't have to be just about the 28th Amendment.

The 28th Amendment is what's causing California to call for that Constitutional Convention, but once you have a convention, each one of their states can bring up whatever they want. If they want something to be added, and even if California was to bring up that whole 28th amendment, should there be a convention, it still doesn't mean that it actually has a good chance of making it into our constitution. So again, there's a long game going on here, and the chances of this actually happening are pretty much 0.0 to maybe 0.0; that's kind of the chances of this actually working out.

But again, it's just California never quits; I mean, they never quit. You know what they've done to their own citizens, what they've done to them, is what they want to do to the rest of the country, and they'll stop at nothing to do that, including completely obliterating a constitutional right. That's what California is right there, so just try and keep that in mind every time you're wondering whether or not things will change. Until there's a top-down change, nothing will ever change in that state.

So I just wanted to let you guys know that that just happened yesterday; they officially voted on it and approved it by a vast majority. So, we'll keep an eye on it; if other states decide that they want to join in on this, maybe Hawaii, New Jersey, New York, or Illinois, other states that we know kind of support what California does, they might jump in on it, but I don't see other states doing it. But I'll let you guys know where these other states stand. Again, thank you very much for watching; I 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 a very unconstitutional new law just took effect in the state of New York yesterday that means that if you live in New York, just like California, you now have to do background checks for ammunition. And I knew this was going to cause a lot of problems because it caused a lot of problems in California. But just to be sure, I decided to call some shops in New York and see what type of experience they're having with the new system, with the fees, with everything that you need to do in order to make that transaction happen. And today I want to talk to you guys about what the shops are telling me, so let's get to it.

Right now, there's no phone system to call to complete the background check. The state says that will be up and running in October. Now the site was briefly down for maintenance a little bit ago, but it is now back up and running.

Okay, so let's go ahead and dive right into this. So again, if you live in the state of New York as of yesterday, you have to go through a background check in order to get ammunition. Now this background check is very similar to California as in the way that it's run because it's run through the state. So you give up all your information that gets transmitted to the state, and then the state sends back an approval or a denial to the shop, and then you go from there just like in California also run by the state.

Now when California rolled theirs out, it was a nightmare. It's still a nightmare to this day, but it was even worse of a nightmare in the very beginning. Lots of false positives. People who shouldn't have been denied were being denied because there was an address change or some misspelling or just whatever it was. People were being denied, even people who are current law enforcement officers in California were being denied, and so they were not able to practice their second amendment rights. It was a mess. I mean, the systems were down constantly, the background checks were going through the right way, and that's exactly what I expected out of New York. And it turns out that's exactly what is happening in New York.

The first shop that I talked to was in Buffalo, and he said that his systems have been down for about half of the day today and half of the day yesterday. So it's very hit and miss. I mean, somebody's coming in; they want to do one of these transactions, and they simply can't get in the system to do the background check at all. They're giving over their information, but there's no way to transmit that information to the state, and so they're basically left with nothing, and they have to walk out empty-handed because, well, the system's just not working. And that was the same from pretty much every shop that I talked to: the system is crashing, the system is down, the system's not working, and so you have people in that state who are, again, not able to participate in their second amendment rights, and their second amendment rights are being withheld from them because of this computer issue and a poor rollout of this new law.

Now the other issue that people are having, again, is false denials. Not only that, but extensive wait times. Luckily for me, it came back in like under a minute. There was a gentleman that was there for an hour and a half; he filled out all of his stuff before I got up there; his was still processing. So if you are approved, it's about a 10-minute wait from what I'm hearing. So it could be up to about 10 minutes, is what I'm hearing. So you have to do the transaction, then you have to wait around. So you wait around for 10 minutes, and then it comes back, and it's approved, and then you can finish your transaction. Now if it is having problems, you could wait up to two hours. So that means that you run into the shop real quick, you fill out all the information, two hours later, you are still standing there waiting to hear whether or not you're approved or denied. So there are people who are being delayed, people who are being denied, and you know some people are able to get approved and get out of there no problem, and then some people who aren't able to do anything because of computer system issues.

Now talk to another shop in Brooklyn. I got to be honest with you; it's been a while since I talked to anybody who is that mad over the phone. I mean, this guy was irate. This is affecting his business directly. For two days, he is having computer issues, system issues; he's not able to get in and to do the background checks. People are upset about the fees. There's a $2.50 fee associated with this, and that's for each transaction. So if you have a customer come in, and they get a box of one thing, and then as they're walking out, they realize they forgot to get another box of something else, well, that's a second background check, that's a second $2.50 fee, that's a second time period of waiting. And really what this is all about is trying to discourage people from doing it at all. You know, people don't have the time; they don't have the extra money. I mean, nobody wants to go through that process. And so, again, I believe that this is all about discouraging people from attempting it to begin with. And so there's a lot of problems in New York right now, and just like in California, where we have a lawsuit, there's a lawsuit going against this one as well in New York. And you know, hopefully, it gets overturned, at least at minimum for now, and an injunction to stop this from happening because if you just look at the basics here, is that you are infringing on people's second amendment rights when they're not able to practice that right. And ammunition is protected by the Second Amendment; it's essential to the overall function of the arm; therefore, it is protected. And so by denying people that, by denying people that portion, you're basically denying them their second amendment rights. And to me, it's a blatant constitutional violation. I don't see any other way around this. But it was no surprise to me that out of all the shops I talked to, everybody was upset; everybody was angry, and everybody was experiencing pretty much the same problems: system issues, angry customers, wait times, and everything else that we've already been through with the state of California. So it's a tough one. And you know, these things sometimes when the lawsuits are filed, they take a long time to actually get any results. But I'm hoping, like I said before, maybe a temporary restraining order or an injunction can be put in place while the case actually goes through. We'll see what happens. But I think that if people who are denied were to speak up or maybe write the FPC, write the GOA, let them know what your story was and let them know you were denied and for what reason, whether it's a system issue or a name issue or an address, it doesn't matter, whatever your reason for denial was, let them know about it so that they have information available to them when they file this lawsuit because they can't just simply say when they go to file a lawsuit, they can't simply say, "Hey, look, we think people are having this problem." They need actual testimony from people who have had the problem. So, again, I think that that's really important. You know, find out what their email is, go to their website, and email them and let them know what happened to you. I think that's the best way to go about it, and I think it's the best way to add a little bit more information to the fight to overturn this and stop it from happening because, again, if it's happening here, it's happened on the Left Coast and the right coast, and it's going to start moving its way in; you're going to see more states start to adopt it. So we have to stop it where it starts. Anyway, I just wanted to let you guys know about that absolute nightmare that's happened over there, and I want to let you know some of the stories that the shops told me. So I want to thank you all very much for watching. I 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 today I've got some great news for you. I mean, this is unprecedented. For the third time in a row, post Bruin, the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, who has not been traditionally friendly to the second or first amendment, has decided to side with the Constitution, and we got a big win out of it. So we're going to be talking about that win today, what it means for California, and how the tides are changing. Let's talk about it.

Hey, real quick, I just want to mention that more than half the people that watch these videos are not actually subscribed. If you like Second Amendment content and you want to know what's going on around you, hit that little subscribe button. It's free, but it helps me out quite a bit, and sometimes people aren't seeing the videos they want to see in their thread, so make sure you hit that little alarm bell. That'll let you know when new content comes out. I put Second Amendment content out pretty much daily, so again, make sure you subscribe. A like would be appreciated, and hit that little bell notification. Let's get to it.

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here. So we're talking about Junior Sports magazine Inc v. Banta. This is an extremely important case because of what California was trying to do here, and I think that everybody needs to pay attention to this one. So Junior Sports magazine Inc is challenging California's law that basically banned advertising and product placement and anything related to the Second Amendment to youth. So basically, it was just taking an entire generation and wiping that right away from them. Now, it wasn't necessarily taking the right away from them, but it wasn't allowing them to see that right, to know that that right existed.

And so what they were trying to do is they were trying to create this generational gap where people wouldn't have information growing up. They wouldn't know what their rights were. They wouldn't know what anything was all about. And so once, you know, people started to age out and these younger people started to become adults, you would have basically a dumbed-down generation that wouldn't understand what their rights were all about because, again, they couldn't know anything about it.

Now, obviously, that's a very big deal. We could see exactly what California was trying to do with this, and the ninth circuit apparently did too. The ninth circuit actually saw completely through what California was trying to do and had some incredible things to say about it. So let me go ahead and read you guys one of the incredible things that they had to say about this, and it'll show you exactly where the ninth circuit mindset was on this, and I find it absolutely fantastic. Again, like I said in the last ninth circuit video that I made, you don't typically see language like this from the ninth circuit, so check this out.

Now, what you're looking at right here is part of a paragraph from a judge that agreed with the majority in the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals that basically overturned The District Court's opinion that there should not be an injunction in this case. I write separately to emphasize that laws like AB2751, which attempt to use the coercive power of the state to eliminate a viewpoint from public discourse, deserve strict scrutiny. Our court's precedent is ambiguous about whether viewpoint discriminatory laws that regulate commercial speech are subject to strict scrutiny. In the appropriate case, we should make clear that they are.

But that's not it, check out this part. In the end, California spins a web of speculation, not facts or evidence, to claim that restrictions on speech will significantly curb unlawful firearm use and gun violence among minors. The First Amendment cannot be so easily trampled through inference and innuendo. We thus conclude that California has not justified its intrusion into protected speech. To hold otherwise would require us to engage in the sort of speculation or conjecture that is an unacceptable means of demonstrating that a restriction on commercial speech directly advances the state's asserted interest.

So here's what happened at the district court level. Junior Sports magazine was looking for an injunction to halt enforcement of this new law. Now, the judge took a look at all the findings and all the evidence and decided not to grant the injunction, basically stating that she didn't believe they had a good likelihood of success on the merits. So Junior Sports magazine decided that they were going to take it up to the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and they were going to appeal that judge's decision. And that is what came out of the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

The ninth circuit basically told that district court judge not only did you get it wrong, but you got it very, very wrong. So we are going to reverse your decision, and we are going to send it back down to you with instructions that Junior Sports magazine actually does have a very good chance, a very good likelihood of success on the merits, and we want you to grant that injunction. That's what was basically said to the district court judge. So again, it was reversed and remanded back down to the district court, and it looks like just because of the ninth circuit's opinion on this going down to that judge, we are going to be seeing an injunction granted against the state. So this is again fantastic.

So this is obviously a First Amendment case, but it affects a lot more than just the First Amendment, obviously. I mean, we can all see what the implication here is and what California was trying to do here, and just like that judge said, you know, you're trying to coerce the public and trying to reduce or restrict First Amendment free speech in order to affect discourse and what people have knowledge of is what California is trying to do. They're trying to take an entire generation and make them less knowledgeable about one of their rights, and everybody can see through that.

But that's what they're trying to do, and we see now with New Mexico and other states how far they're willing to go. So don't think that other states wouldn't try and do this as well. So if we get an injunction and we eventually get a win in this case, like even the ninth circuit says that they see that there's a likelihood of success on the merits, then we're going to have precedent should any other state try and do that as well under some other um uh some other court. Again, this is a very big First Amendment case, a very big deal, and it affects quite a bit. So we're going to stay on top of it, and if and when this judge actually does grant the injunction, I'll let you guys know about it. But I think we're going to see in the end here a complete win. But in the meantime, I don't think California is going to be able to enforce it after this. So we'll see what happens, and I will keep you guys up to date. 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, and welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. So, while everybody's distracted with New Mexico's ban on open and concealed carry, California is moving forward with its own quasi concealed carry ban, SB2 got some updates. Let's talk about it.

This video is proud to be sponsored by Las Concealment, absolutely some of the best holsters that you are going to find on the market today. With a holster that will fit pretty much everything, as you can see right here, I have the Ronin 3.0. This is a holster and mag carrier in one. It is the most comfortable holster that I have ever worn. It's got bungee retention in the center, allowing it to move and conform to your body, whether you wear this appendix or at the four o'clock position. This is going to be the most comfortable holster that you own. Just like with other Las Concealment holsters, this is not made from an off-the-shelf mold. It's a nicely CNC machined holster with smooth edges and is completely adjustable for the ride height. The magazine holster on this one is relief cut for a good draw of that magazine when you need it. It's adjustable in retention and is a phenomenal holster. If you have a bucket full of holsters that didn't work, check out Las Concealment holsters; this will be the last holster you need.

Okay, let's go and talk about what's going on here. If you're not familiar with SB2, it was California's answer to the Bruin decision. Just like New York, California also had a good cause or just cause requirement that had you prove some type of special need to get a permit. Since most people couldn't prove that special need, pretty much nobody got a permit. The only people that got permits were retired law enforcement judges and people of that nature. So, in California, it was extremely difficult. California had to get rid of that good cause or just cause requirement because Bruin said that it's unconstitutional. They drafted SB2, which was originally introduced back in December of 2022.

Now, when it was originally introduced, it was the worst carry bill that I have ever seen. Not only was it nearly impossible to get a permit, it was also very costly and time-consuming. But let's just say that you actually did get a permit under the original SB2. Even then, you still couldn't use it because you couldn't go about your daily life without crossing through some type of sensitive location or restricted area. So, it was almost like a quasi-ban on concealed carry. California knows how to do these things well and they know how to work around things, drafting new laws that make it harder to legislate. That's what they did with the original SB2.

Now, SB2 has been bounced back and forth between the assembly and the Senate, and there have been quite a few amendments. The last thing to happen just happened yesterday, and that's what we're going to be talking about. Let's go and talk about some of the amendments and what SB2 looks like now that it is back in the Senate and looks like it's going to pass and be headed up to the governor's desk.

Like I said before, I think this is the final version of SB2. This is the one that's going to be voted on very soon and head up to the governor's desk. I just read it this morning, and this is what SB2 looks like now. So, SB2 has changed quite a bit. As far as getting the permit goes, it's going to be just as difficult. There is going to be an extensive background check. In the original version of SB2, they had switched out the "good cause" requirement with "good moral character," and you had to prove that you had this good moral character to get your permit. However, that language has been stricken, but they're still doing character checks on you. They're going to be doing interviews and digging into your past, looking at pretty much everything to determine who you are. The background checks are still going to be pretty extensive, including fingerprints and IDs. Basically, all of your information is going to be required. It's going to be very expensive.

Well, as a matter of fact, they actually took away some of the safeguards that kept things from being overcharged or even more pricey. So, it could potentially be very expensive to get your permit in California if you make it through the background check and all that stuff. The training is still there, all of the hours of training. So, you're talking 16 hours now of mandated training, two full eight-hour days that could potentially take away from work and your time to earn money. On top of the background check and all the other processes, it's going to be very expensive and time-consuming just to get your permit.

Now, if you do get your permit, thankfully there aren't as many sensitive locations. Before, you couldn't even go into the parking lot of a medical facility. They seem to have done away with a lot of that language and limited the sensitive places. But sensitive places still include churches, and that includes their parking lots and adjacent sidewalks, school parking lots, sidewalks adjacent to that, public transportation, airports, and their parking lots and adjacent sidewalks. They expanded the boundaries around those areas, so there are still more sensitive locations than before, but it's not quite as bad.

So, while SB2 did change, it's still a very bad bill and could lead to a lot of people getting into a lot of trouble. It's still like a quasi-carry ban because, while there's no more "good moral character," "good cause," or anything like that, it's still going to be very difficult for most people to get a permit. Unfortunately, it's going to be too expensive for most people to get a permit under SB2 in its current form. This is the version that's going to be headed up to the governor's desk, and we've been watching this one very closely.

California's response to Bruin is essentially, "We don't care what you came up with; we'll go ahead and make some changes." It's going to be just as difficult as before, just in a different way. So, I want to let you guys know about that bill that has been slowly moving and has been seeing a lot of movement over the past two or three weeks. It looks like we're going to see something finalized here very soon, and I'll let you know when the governor actually signs it. This is exactly what he needs and wants. When he signs it, I'll let you guys know, and we'll see if this is the last and final version. Thank you all very much for watching; please like and 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 I'm out here in the desert today, working on some reviews for you guys, and I thought I would touch on this whole New Mexico thing because there's some things that I don't think people are talking about too much that need to be talked about.

As I'm sure everybody out there knows, the governor of New Mexico just single-handedly decided that she's going to suspend the Second Amendment while you're out in public in Albuquerque and surrounding counties. So for the next 30 days, forget about it, the Second Amendment just simply doesn't exist now – open carry, no concealed carry, even though the Supreme Court said in Brewington that we have a constitutional right to carry outside of the home for our own personal defense.

If you didn't really care about that, she decided to use Public Health, which is what a lot of these Governors decide to do when they want to make rules that violate our constitutional rights. You know, somehow public health is what we're going to use to do that. So that's what she did.

Now, there's a lot happening in New Mexico right now, and one of the greatest things that I have seen recently is the public come back and say we don't care, we don't care what law you're making, we're going to go ahead and we're going to do it anyway. So I am seeing massive acts of Civil Disobedience just like this one.

Fellow Second Amendment advocates out here have the courage to come out while open carrying, protesting against our tyrannical governor's order trying to ban concealed carry and open carry.

This video is proud to be sponsored by infinite defense and the Gen 2 Infinity Target. The infinity Target is a self-healing target that still allows you to identify your shots. Instead of walking up here and covering up 40 holes with pieces of tape or stapling up a new target, all you have to do is hit it with a can of spray paint, and you're good to go all over again. The infinity Target will take up to 110 rounds per square inch, so this thing is going to last you a long time and is much safer than steel up close. Alright, so you can see here you can still identify your shots. I peppered all over with the nine millimeter and then got tighter groups with my two two three. Only thing I need to do now is simply cover it up. Now I don't suggest you use red like I did, I suggest you use white. But if you want a tip for having some fun at night, all you have to do is hit this thing with some glow-in-the-dark spray paint, a little bit of light, and you'll be able to see it at nighttime from a distance. So if you guys are interested, I will put a link down to these Infinity targets down below, check it out, these are the last targets you guys will need.

So with that being said, let's get to the video. Things like that are exactly what you want to see in times where somebody oversteps their boundaries. Sometimes civil disobedience is exactly what needs to happen, and that is what's happening in New Mexico right now, which is fantastic.

Because you have to remember that there's a couple of things that people are kind of missing here because everybody's mad at the governor, and rightly so. She's trying to impede and infringe on people's Second Amendment rights, and so a lot of people are upset with that. But you have to remember that whatever document she signs, whatever word she speaks, carry absolutely no weight if there's not anybody there to enforce it, right?

So if you have these sheriffs and these deputies and these police officers that are out there, if they decide to enforce something that's completely unconstitutional, then it's as much on them as it is the governor. So with that being said, there needs to be an end to this whole "I'm just following orders" thing. You have a duty and an obligation to not follow orders that infringe on people's civil liberties and civil rights, and that's exactly what we have with the Second Amendment.

If that governor was to say, you know what, I'm going to go ahead, I'm going to suspend the first, I'm going to suspend the second, I'm going to suspend the fifth, and goes down a list and creates an entire document of things that are going to be suspended for a 30-day period, again, it wouldn't mean anything if there was nobody there to enforce it; it would just be a piece of paper.

I've heard some other good things that are coming out of this. We have multiple lawsuits, lawsuits from people within the Republican party in New Mexico, lawsuits coming from the NAGR. There are also lawsuits and I think there's even people from within her own party that are kind of joining onto this, and there is also a push for an impeachment as well. So this is basically what she did by doing this is she exposed everything that the anti-gun left is about, right? And so even they're kind of freaking out a little bit. You know, they're not liking the fact that she's showing all of their cards right away by suspending the Second Amendment for 30 days and by telling people that you're not allowed to do something that is a constitutional right.

She's showing what they're willing to do and how far they're willing to go, and they don't like that at all. So again, there's impeachment, there's lawsuits, there's civil disobedience. You know what I want to see next is I want to see all of the law enforcement get together, all of the sheriffs of these different counties get together and say, "These don't hold any weight with us. Anytime you infringe on somebody's civil liberties, we're not going to enforce it," and that would basically be the end of it. That would be the end of that. If it's not going to be enforced, then it carries absolutely no weight.

But again, it's this show of disobedience that I like the most. I mean, I would hope that that would happen in more places. I've seen, you know, I posted some stuff on Instagram and I got a lot of comments from people saying that New Mexico is going to be the next California. Well, it's only going to be the next California if people in New Mexico allow it to be the next California. That's the big problem in California. You have these cities and these major cities that are so densely populated that they control the votes, right? And so everybody that's outside of these cities really doesn't have much of a say. They're such a small portion of the overall number of the voting public that they basically get voted out. So the people in the cities in California are really the ones that are making all these policy decisions.

In New Mexico, being that it's obviously set up a bit different than California, I think there's a better chance of people using their voice and using their vote in order to make the proper change so that it doesn't end up being California. But I got a lot of comments like that saying that they are going to be the next California. And again, I just wanted to say if you live in New Mexico and you're watching this, that's up to you. That's up to you what happens from here on out because now you have the ball in your court. They've shown their hand; they've taken their shot, and now it's up to you to make things different.

So again, what we need is more of what we're seeing right now: Civil Disobedience, and we need to see people who are actually making a change, and we need to see law enforcement get together and say we're not going to do this. So again, I think that what's happening in New Mexico as far as people's response to what she did is fantastic, and we need more people to do that and show her that, "Hey, you know, regardless of what paper you sign or what reason you have, you don't have the right to suspend people's civil liberties," and that's pretty much the end of that story right there. It doesn't matter what you do; it doesn't matter what you say. Rights are eternal; they're inalienable. It means that even if the Constitution doesn't exist, we would still have those rights.

So I just wanted to touch on that real quick and show you guys that little clip right there, and, you know, Bravo to those people that are standing up in New Mexico. I want to thank you all very much for watching; I really do appreciate it. Please like, subscribe; you guys have a great day.

California has banned open carry for a long time. A challenge to that ban was filed which is Baird v Bonta. This case just scored a major victory at the 9th circuit.

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 is exciting to finally be able to bring you some good news out of the state of California. We just had a major victory, and this is going to lead to some big changes that I don't think the California politicians are going to like very much.

California has banned open carry for quite a while now, and even when it was legal, it was so modified that it was just completely ineffective anyway. It had to be unloaded and separate from, it was just a big old pain. So there was a lawsuit that was filed. This lawsuit's been around for quite a while now, and it's challenging California's ban on open carry. Well, guess what? It looks like California is going to be getting open carry very, very soon. So let's talk about what just happened in the Ninth Circuit.

Hey, real quick, I just want to mention that more than half the people that watch these videos are not actually subscribed. If you like Second Amendment content, you want to know what's going on around you, hit that little subscribe button. It's free, but it helps me out quite a bit. And sometimes people aren't seeing the videos they want to see in their thread, so make sure you hit that little alarm bell. That'll let you know when new content comes out. I put Second Amendment content out pretty much daily. So again, make sure you subscribe, a like would be appreciated, and hit that little bell notification. Let's get to it.

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here. This is extremely exciting. I know that not everybody's a huge fan of open carry, but in places like California where everything is limited, you've got to take whatever action you can to defend yourself. So in California, there's a case called Baird v. Banta, I believe it's pronounced "Baird" (b-a-i-r-d). Now, this case has been going around for a while now. They've been trying to get an injunction stopping enforcement of California's ban on open carry because they say that it's conduct that's protected by the Second Amendment and California is not allowed to ban it.

Obviously, they go for an injunction at the district court level. Now, just recently, the district court judge decided to deny their injunction, but in denying their injunction, he used the two-step approach, the interest-balancing approach that the Supreme Court in Bruin said you're not allowed to use anymore. So the plaintiffs decided that, well, they're going to appeal that denial for an injunction up to the Ninth Circuit, which has not been super friendly to the Second Amendment, and you just kind of never know what's going to happen once you get there.

Well, it turns out that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals absolutely smacked down the district court's order, actually calling it an abuse of discretion. So the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals basically told the district court that not only did you get it wrong, but you got it so wrong that it was blatantly abusive. I mean, I've never heard language like this from the Ninth Circuit before, and I want to read you guys some of it now, and that'll lead us into how we're getting open carry in California.

So let me just read you something real quick. Now, try and keep in mind that this is language from the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals to the district court. You don't usually hear language like this from the Ninth Circuit. But it says here, "To The District Court, the panel reversed the District Court's denial of appellants' motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to enjoin enforcement of California Penal Code sections that impose criminal penalties for the unlicensed open carry of a handgun and remanded with instructions. The panel held that the district court abused its discretion by applying an incorrect legal standard to deny appellant's motion for a preliminary injunction. Instead of analyzing the first factor set forth in Winter v. Nat, whether appellants are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim, the district court erroneously determined that because the public interest and balance of harms disfavored the issuance of a preliminary injunction, it was not necessary to assess appellant's likelihood of success on the merits. Analysis of this first Winter factor is centrally important where a plaintiff alleges a violation of a constitutional right, including the individual's right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home under the Second Amendment. Pursuant to the NY Safe Act v. Bruin, a government may regulate the manner of that carry only if it demonstrates that the regulation is identical or closely analogous to a firearm regulation broadly in effect when the Second or 14th Amendment was ratified. The panel set forth three requirements to guide The District Court's preliminary injunction analysis on remand. The District Court's analysis of the first Winter factor must include consideration of whether the conduct that California's General open carry ban regulates is covered by the text of the Second Amendment. If it is, California bears the burden to identify a well-established and representative historical analog to its open carry ban that was enforced when the Second or 14th Amendment was ratified. Noting that it has been more than four years since the appellant's first moved for a preliminary injunction and more than 14 months since Bruin was decided, the panel directed The District Court to complete its preliminary injunction review expeditiously. If the district court determines that appellants showed that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim, the district court must account for the impact that determination has on the remaining winter factors when it analyzes each of them. This means recognizing that in this case involving a constitutional claim, a likelihood of success on the merits usually establishes irreparable harm and strongly tips the balance of equities and public interest in favor of granting the preliminary injunction. So we'll just skip to the bottom here where it says conclusion. We reverse the denial of a preliminary injunction if it results from an abuse of discretion, which is exactly what the court says happened here. Hereby declining to assess appellant's likelihood of success on the merits of their Second Amendment claim, the district court abused its discretion by failing to apply proper preliminary injunction standard for a case raising a constitutional challenge. We, therefore, reverse and remand, recognizing that the preliminary injunction proceedings in this case have been ongoing for more than four years. We instruct the district court to complete and re-complete its re-evaluation of the requested preliminary injunction and issue a decision expeditiously. Reversed and remanded."

So basically, what the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said to the district court is if you're looking at a preliminary injunction, you have to first determine whether or not the plaintiffs have a likelihood of winning on the merits. But the district court did not do that. What did they do? They looked at an interest balancing approach, that two-step approach, and decided that it would be more harmful if they granted the injunction than if they denied the injunction. And so they didn't even go on to the next step, which is to look at whether or not this case has a good chance of winning on the merits. And so they denied the injunction before they even got to that point. The Ninth Circuit said you can't do that, and you can't use the two-step approach. So you have to look at whether or not the conduct is protected by the Second Amendment. And then it's on the government's back to determine whether or not there is some type of historical analog that they can use to justify the laws as it stands today.

So what they do is they reverse the district court's order, saying that that order no longer exists anymore. So the denial of the injunction is gone, and we want you to take another look at this case using these three steps that we're going to give you right here. And we want you to basically take a look at it again because you got it wrong, you did it wrong, it's a do-over.

Now, what does that mean for you and what does that mean for California? Well, that means that we're looking at the best chance that we have ever seen to see an injunction against California's ban on open carry. So the district court's going to have to look at this again. The Ninth Circuit basically told the district court that, "Hey, you got it wrong by denying the injunction, and so the correct thing to do then would be to grant the injunction. And since we already know that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has looked at this in light of Bruin and in light of its impacts on the Second Amendment, even if this goes back up to the Ninth Circuit on appeal, we kind of have some insight now as to how the Ninth Circuit would rule on that appeal. So more than likely, we are going to see an injunction granted and probably upheld. That is going to basically stop enforcement of this open carry ban in California, meaning that open carry could be coming back very, very soon. And that is extremely exciting because that's probably some of the best news that we've heard in a long time, regardless of how you feel about that particular method or not. That's still a massive win, that's still huge. And again, it's showing us that in a post-Bruin world, we're seeing more Second Amendment cases be looked at in a different light by the Ninth Circuit. Again, the Ninth Circuit always used interest balancing in the past, they never sided with us, they always sided with the state. But now, this is two times in a row, one with Y and now with this, that we've seen them side with the Second Amendment again using that Bruin standard.

So this is very exciting. I'm going to follow this case as closely as possible and see what's going to happen here. But again, remember that the Ninth Circuit told the district court, "Look, this has been going on for too long. We need something done expeditiously here. We need something done very, very quickly because the plaintiffs have already been waiting for too long. We're talking about 14 months since Bruin, we're talking about four years since the injunction was asked for. So we're looking at over five years now that the plaintiffs have been looking for relief and haven't gotten it. So the district court needs to act fast on this. That means that we're going to be seeing something very soon. And again, if the order isn't what we like, it can still go back up to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals where, again, they've shown that we have a good chance of at least stopping that law from being enforced at the time being, but more than likely having it overturned completely in the end.

So I wanted to share that with you. I thought it was huge news out of the state of California and finally some good news. So this is great. So we'll follow this case very closely. I'll bring you guys any updates as they happen. And I want to thank you all very much for watching. Please like, subscribe if you haven't already. And you guys have a great day.

California is facing numerous lawsuits attempting to overturn the states gun control laws. One of which is Nguyen v Bonta. This lawsuit challenges the 1 in 30 day purchase restrictions. There is finally significant movement in this case and we have some important dates.

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 huge update in the Second Amendment case in the state of California. You know, there are so many cases right now in California that are challenging these unconstitutional laws that sometimes we forget about some, even the big ones. And this is one that hasn't been talked about for quite a while, but it's a big problem in the state of California, and that is the one in 30 law.

There's a lot of people who don't live in the state of California, who probably don't even know about this, but in California, if you want to get yourself a semi-automatic firearm, you can only get one every 30 days. That's clearly unconstitutional. Basically, if you get one on the first, you have to wait 31 days before you can get something else. So there's this 30-day moratorium where you're just basically left without your rights.

Well, there was a lawsuit that was filed pretty much the second that this law took effect, which is back in July of 2021, and we finally have movement in that case. And I think that we're going to be seeing a big win, and we have some major dates to talk about as well. So, this is the case of Nguyen v. Banta, again, a major Second Amendment case, and we're going to be talking about what those dates are, what they mean, and what we can expect out of this because those dates are coming up really soon. So let's talk about it.

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

Now is the time to call the only precious metal dealer that I trust, American Hartford Gold. They'll show you how to protect your savings and retirement accounts by diversifying your wealth portfolio with physical gold and silver. With the finest products, amazing customer service, and a buyback commitment, American Hartford Gold has a five-star rating from thousands of reviews and an A+ from the Better Business Bureau. American Hartford Gold supports content like this that is committed to bringing you the truth. Tell them I sent you, and they'll give you up to five thousand dollars of free silver on your first order. So, call them now, click the link in the description, or call 866-856-2507. That's 866-856-2507 or text COPPER to 65532. Again, that's 866-856-2507 or text COPPER to 65532.

Okay, so let's go and talk about Nguyen v. Banta, again challenging California's unconstitutional one in 30 law. Now, here's the thing, this case, if you take a look at the timeline on this thing, it's been nothing but delay after delay and requests for extension after extension after extension, and not much has really happened until January of 2023 where the current judge who's overseeing this case, Judge William Hayes, denied a motion by the plaintiffs for a summary judgment.

Now, the FPC is also involved in this one as well. They were looking for a summary judgment on this because it's clearly unconstitutional. Now, remember, all of this started before Bruin, so Bruin has happened while this case has already existed. And so, in January 1st, 2023, the judge in this case said no. He denied the motion for a summary judgment. He wasn't going to rule on it. Summary judgment basically says that before we even make it to trial, the judge can see that it's unconstitutional and he's going to call it out for what it is, overturn it as unconstitutional. And again, that judge decided that he was not going to do that.

So he denied that back in January of 2023. And since then, again, since we're still trying to get an injunction, we're still trying to get this overturned, it's been nothing but delay, delay, delay, the entire year so far of 2023. But we finally, after all this time, have some dates to talk about, and these dates are coming up fairly soon. So let's go over those dates real quick because they're going to have significant importance whether or not we're going to see some relief in this unconstitutional law.

Okay, so here's a look at some important dates, and these were just filed, I believe, on the 28th or 29th of August. So these are up-to-date dates, deadlines for pre-trial motions coming up in less than two weeks on September 15th, oppositions October 13th, and then replies to that October 27th. After that is going to be the oral arguments. Now, in oral arguments, we could see a lot happen after that. Obviously, after oral arguments, the judge could decide that he's going to provide injunctive relief or something else that would basically put a stop to California's enforcement of the one in 30-day rule. But that time is set by the judge himself. So it says here, oral arguments will be set by the court at a later date, more than likely, we're going to see that later date be before 2024.

So oral arguments are going to be huge in this one. And obviously, in a post-Bruin world, we could definitely see a win on our side in this fairly soon, whether it comes towards the end of this year or maybe even early next year. We could actually see some relief in this case depending on which side the judge leans on. But he's going to have to look at things through the light of Bruin. And I can tell you right now, if we take a look back in history, I can't think of absolutely anything, and I've done research for years now, looking for stuff. I can't find anything that shows that people were basically withheld their constitutional rights for any period of time, whether it be two days, five days, or in California's case, 30 days. That is an extensive amount of time, and California is going to have to validate that. That's the biggest thing during these oral arguments.

California is going to have to try and validate that through history, through text, history, and tradition. California is going to have to say, "Look, here is an analogous law, something that's comparable to the law that we have today that says that this law should stand." And there's nothing that they have that they're going to be able to find. There is no way to validate California's law that withholds people's constitutional rights for a one-month period for pretty much no reason at all. Obviously, California likes to use public safety, and I'm sure they would like to use the two-step approach on this one, which would balance public safety and government interest against your rights. But with the new Bruin decision being out, they can't do that anymore. So obviously, that's going to go right out the window, and they're going to have to find that historical analog that they can lean on. And it doesn't exist.

So, I mean, with just looking at the bare facts on this one, this case looks like a pretty much slam dunk for us and for the people of California and any other state that thinks they would like to try something similar. So again, that's one of the worst to me, right? You go out, you get something, you spend your hard-earned money, and then you decide, "Oh, you know, the newest latest and greatest thing came out, and I want to get that too." You can't. You just can't under California law. You can't do it. Now, that's not affected by private party transfers, and there's a couple of things. If you have a CNR license and stuff like that, there's ways to get around that. But for the general average public, that's it. You get your one, and now you're... You can't do anything else for 30 days.

It's not talked about enough, but it's one of the worst laws in the state of California. It's one of the worst things that's happened in that state, and I think it needs to have more attention and more light spotlighted on it so that people are focusing more, and maybe there's a little bit of public pressure, and anything will help, obviously, right? And joining these different groups that are spending their time, like the FPC in court where it costs a fortune to take these lawsuits up and try and fight for your rights.

So, if you're not a member, consider becoming a member of your favorite group that's out there. You know, that's the kind of how they run on things. They run off of our goodwill, and so we need to give that to them so that they can help overturn these unconstitutional laws. But FPC is involved in this one, and FPC has been scoring some pretty major victories lately, and I think that this is going to be another one. So, I'm excited to see the outcome. But again, we're going to be seeing a lot of movement here soon. I mean, we're talking less than two weeks before the first date, and then by the time October rolls around, we're going to be seeing some more information come out. We're going to see what California's arguments are, and then we'll see what date the judge sets for oral arguments.

And then those oral arguments are typically something that you can listen to live, and I will try and bring those to you live as well so we can get this whole one in 30-day thing behind us and overturned. But I wanted to let you guys know about that because again, it just hasn't been talked about enough at all since everything's been taking place. So, I just want to thank you all very much for watching. I really do appreciate it. I'm glad to be back, and I want to thank everybody for all the well wishes and prayers again while I was out sick and in the hospital. Thank you guys all very much. If you're not a subscriber yet, consider doing that. I make Second Amendment content every single day. I do news and reviews. So, thank you all very much for watching. Take care.