In a recent tweet directed at Judge Roger Benitez, the Governor of California went too far and seemingly snapped over the decision that the states mag ban is "unconstitutional"

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 you guys are definitely going to want to watch this one. So, remember last Friday, Judge Benitez in California said the California's ban on magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds was unconstitutional. In order to get to that decision, he used what the Supreme Court said he should use: text, history, and tradition. He looked at the evidence that was provided to him, and he came up with a decision that it was unconstitutional in a 72-page order.

Well, obviously that didn't sit very well with the attorney general, Rob Bonta, or the governor. And today I want to talk to you about the governor's response, which absolutely slams Benitez, and you won't believe some of the things that he says. So stay tuned, let's get right to it.

Now, real quick, if you want to support this channel and you're watching and you haven't yet subscribed, hit that little subscribe button. It's free, it only takes a second, but it helps me out quite a bit. And hit that little alarm bell; that'll let you know when new videos come out, and you can stay up to date on what they are trying to do to your rights.

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here. So have you ever noticed that governors in states who pass laws that violate our constitution get pretty upset when that same constitution is used to overturn those laws? They just cannot handle it, and that is the case here where Newsome basically breaks down and says some things about Bonita that are just, in my opinion, slanderous and just completely over the top.

Now, I expected him not to be happy, obviously, but some of the things that he said went too far even for him. So let me go ahead and read you guys his response, which is basically his tweet. I don't think he made a video about it like Bonta did, but this is his tweet about the decision.

Now, try and keep in mind that this is in response to a judge siding with the constitution, siding with one of our rights within our Bill of Rights. So that should be something that somebody who swore to uphold and defend the constitution would accept and support. Well, no, he doesn't accept and support it. As a matter of fact, he says this: "Breaking: California's high capacity magazine ban was just struck down (all caps) by Judge Benitez." Okay, here, get this: "An extremist right-wing zealot with no regard for human life." Now, I don't know about you guys, but does that sound like Benitez at all? A guy who used text, history, and tradition to come out with an order that's basically just upholding our constitutional rights?

Now, if you don't side with the state, that's what they call you. Oh, but don't think that he missed his opportunity to take advantage of this in order to push his 28th Amendment, which is what he does in the same text. So it continues on to say, "Wake up America, our gun safety laws will continue to be thrown out by NRA-owned federal judges until we pass a constitutional amendment to protect our kids." So he's using the fact that one of our rights was upheld by a federal judge to push for an amendment that would essentially eliminate that right.

So, I mean, if you couldn't see the issue before and the problem with this before, you definitely should see it now because what he's saying is the constitution got in my way from doing what I wanted to do. These magazines he thinks should be banned; the constitution thinks otherwise, our Bill of Rights, our Second Amendment thinks otherwise, this federal judge upheld that. So what does he want to do? Well, just simply get rid of it. If we get rid of the Second Amendment by placing a 28th Amendment, which would simply override the Second Amendment, then he can go ahead and do what he wants, and he doesn't have to worry about the constitution. That's what this is all about. It's about the constitution being in their way.

So, I've always said this: they view the constitution as a speed bump, right? It might slow them down a little bit, but they're still just going to simply run it right over. That's how they look at our Bill of Rights. They look at it as a speed bump; they're just going to continue driving on down the road instead of the impenetrable brick wall that it actually is, where it's going to stop you. You cannot pass this point right here; there is no more driving; it is not a speed bump.

So again, it's their point of view that it's a speed bump instead of a roadblock. And so when they're faced with that actual roadblock and they're looking at this brick wall, saying, "Hey, I can't do anything else; I can't do what I want to do because this thing is in my way," what do they do? Well, they want to come up with a way to just simply tear it down. And that's what he's doing with his 28th Amendment.

But the fact that he called Benitez those things, right? The fact that he said those things about him simply for upholding the constitution should tell you absolutely everything you need to know. I mean, we heard Bonta's response; it was a pre-written, pre-planned response. They said that they're going to appeal, and you know they're going to continue taking this through the court system or whatever.

But this right here seems more like it was one of those angry times where you're just simply writing something down without really thinking about what you're saying. Or maybe he did think about what he says; I don't know. But it's definitely pretty eye-opening that they could say that about a federal judge who simply upheld the constitution.

I mean, what do you guys think about it? Leave your comments down in the comment section and let me know. But either way, I wanted to share that with you guys. 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. Massive breaking news happening right now: Judge Benitez just came out with his order in Duncan v. Banta, California's magazine ban case. Let's talk about what he said.

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here. Just like we thought, Judge Benitez took his time to write a completely rock-solid order. As a matter of fact, it is a very long document. I have not had a chance to read the entire thing yet, but I'm sure you guys just want to skip to the end, right? What did he say? Well, let's go ahead and do that and take a look at the order itself last paragraph.

Okay, so it says here, "It is hereby ordered that one defendant attorney general Rob Banta and his officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys, and those persons in active concert or participation with him and those duly sworn State peace officers and federal law enforcement officers who gain knowledge of this injunction order or know of the existence of this injunction order are enjoined from enforcing California penal code section 32310." So that's huge. There's your injunction right there. He granted it.

Two, defendant Rob Banta shall provide by personal service or otherwise actual notice of this order to law enforcement personnel who are responsible for implementing or enforcing the enjoined statute.

Now here is the only downside to this, and I know you guys are going to have a collective eye roll and you're going to wonder what the hell, but we're going to talk about this in just a second.

Number three, this injunction is stayed for 10 days from the date of this order. It is so ordered December 22nd, 2023, by the honorable Judge Roger T. Benitez, U.S. state district court.

So what does this mean? Well, it means that Judge Benitez granted the injunction in this case for the second time. Obviously, the first time is the one that gave us freedom week where it went up to the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. A lot happened. A lot of stuff happened with this case, and it ended up back down to Judge Benitez. And again, like I said before, this is the second time that he has granted an injunction in this case. But this time it's happening post-ruin.

Now, unlike before where we had freedom week, Judge Benitez decided to stay his order, to basically not nullify but to put on hold his injunction for 10 days. Now, why would he do that? Well, he did that to give California time to appeal again back up to the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. But this time, things are a little bit different. We have Bruin on our side, and so there's actually a chance that the ninth Circuit may not want to mess with this one, right? Because, again, it might go back up to the Supreme Court, and we kind of know where the Supreme Court stands. So there's a fairly good chance that the ninth Circuit, already hearing this case, may not want to take it up again. And so after that 10 days, if they've not granted an appeal or if they have not extended a stay or taken that up, then that means in 10 days from today, then the injunction goes into place, the stay is lifted, and that's it for 32310 penal code 32310 in the state of California, in any capacity, would be perfectly fine, all legal and good to go in that state. That would basically mean that that law is over, it's null and void, it's gone.

You know California is going to ask for that state. They're going to ask for that permanent stay or at least a stay until the ending of this case by the ninth Circuit. But here's the thing: it's got to go to a three-judge panel. A three-judge panel is going to look at this. They've been siding with the Second Amendment lately in Hawaii and other cases, and they've been using Bruin as their standard instead of the two-step approach, which is what they used in the past. They used to side with the state all the time by just using that balancing option, right, where they could say, "Well, the state has a great interest in this, and so that kind of overrides your rights." Well, they can't do that anymore post-ruin. They have to look at just simply text, history, and tradition. And as noted in this document by Benitez, he used text, history, tradition; he covered all of his bases in this document. And so they have to look at this. The ninth Circuit has to look at Benitez's order here. They have to read the entire thing and get a good understanding of it. And just based on what he wrote and what I've read so far, there's no way to get through it. And so I don't see any way that the ninth Circuit, unless they just completely decided not to do their job, that they don't just let this stay expire. I think that's personally what's going to happen.

And when it comes to California, I don't say that very often, but I think that we're going to see this 10-day stay expire. And I don't personally think that the ninth Circuit is going to take it up. If they do end up taking it up, I still think we're eventually going to get a win out of it. And they may even allow the injunction to take place while that's happening. So if the injunction takes place but the case continues at the ninth Circuit, then the law is still not in effect for that time being.

So there's a lot to take away from this. I'm going to study this document as much as I can and give you guys any more specific details as we go on down the road here. But the main takeaway is an injunction was granted and a stay was also issued for 10 days. So we may see that law overturned in 10 days. It's very exciting to see some final movement here, and hopefully, this case is just about at an end, and Californians get the win that they absolutely deserve in it. Try to remember, this could have massive effects across the entire country. There are a lot of states that have capacity regulations like this, so try and keep that in mind as well.

Thank you all very much for watching; I really do appreciate it. We've been talking about this one since 2019. I've been making videos about it since 2019, and it would be nice to see this one come to a close with a win for those, you know, the good people over there. Again, thanks 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, it's kind of difficult to imagine that you could add to the absurdity that is California and California gun control. They already have more laws on the books than any other state in the entire country, so how could they possibly imagine anything new? Well, they have, and something just recently passed that's going to blow your mind. You can now get red-flagged, red-flagged for simply owning body armor. Let's talk about what just passed and what effects it's going to have.

Now, real quick, if you want to support this Channel and you're watching and you haven't yet subscribed, hit that little subscribe button. It's free; it only takes a second, but it helps me out quite a bit. And hit that little alarm Bell; that'll let you know when new videos come out, and you can stay up to date on what they are trying to do to your rights. Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here.

So we're talking about AB301, which was just sent up to the governor's desk to be signed. Now, at the time of the making of this video, he hasn't signed it yet, but he has until October the 14th to do so. Now, just based on his track record, based on his history, and what he's been asking in the legislature for, there's a 99.999999 chance that he is going to sign this, and it's going to become law.

So, what does AB301 do? Well, it amends the current Red Flag laws in the state of California to now include body armor. So if somebody wants to file one of these, what they call a California GVRO or Gun Violence Restraining Order against you, and they see that you purchase, own, or possess at the time they see you body armor, they can actually now use that against you to get that red flag or GVRO.

Well, how can they do that? Let me go ahead and read you just a little bit from the bill so you'll see exactly what they're saying that body armor now falls into. So again, it adds and amends this to the existing red flag laws in California that are already just, I mean, completely overblown. You're seeing massive numbers of these confiscations in California now, and it's just getting more and more out of control. So again, let me just read you this quick paragraph here:

In determining whether grounds for a GVRO exist, the court may consider any other evidence of an increased risk for violence, including but not limited to evidence of any of the following, and if we scroll down to the bottom, it says evidence of acquisition of body armor as defined in Section 16288, and for the purposes of this subdivision, "recent" means within the last six months prior to the date the petition was filed. Now, the reason they say within the past six months is because California's red flag laws have become so out of control now that you have up to six months to file one. I mean, that is a significant amount of time; a lot can happen in six months.

So let's say that I have an interaction with somebody, right, and that person didn't like that interaction. Five months down the road, that person sees me loading up my truck, and I happen to be throwing like a Level III vest or something in there, right? That person, even though it's five months later, can still go and file that GVRO and just state that they saw me with this armor, and that's all of the evidence that they will need because you see in that paragraph it says any of the following; it doesn't have to be all of the following. I don't have to own firearms at all; okay, just the armor; that's enough; that's all that they need in order to file a GVRO against you.

And again, in California, so many people can do it; the list just keeps expanding. And now they have six months to do so, and now they're adding this as an example of what can get you GVROed. And that's not all that California is doing with armor this year. As a matter of fact, there's another bill sitting on the governor's desk that affects armor as well. It was a big legislative focus this year, but another thing that they've done is they've said that if you're prohibited from owning firearms, then you should also be prohibited from armor. And so now they've added that to the prohibited list, meaning that if you're somebody who previously owned this, right, you were prohibited from the other thing but not prohibited from this; well, now they're going to go ahead and take away what you have in terms of armor because as a prohibited person, you can't own either. And so that was, I believe, AB 92. So we have AB 301, AB 92, and everything's going after armor now. So again, they want to make sure that they have everything covered; just about everything now can be used as evidence against you even though you have no idea what the hell is going on.

So I wanted to make you guys aware of that. If you're interested in seeing what this thing's about, I'll leave the bill text down below; you guys can check it out for yourself. If you think that that could potentially be an issue, definitely read through it; there's a lot going on there. But you know, sometimes it's worth it to read these lengthy and absolutely ridiculous bills. So again, I'll leave that down below; I just want to let you guys know about that. 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 this is about as bad as it gets. I mean, they're not even trying to hide it anymore. But every town, you know, that Every Town for Gun Safety is now actually going to be part of our executive branch. And what do I mean by that? Well, Biden is set to announce his new office of gun violence prevention, which is essentially the office for creating gun control. Now, this new office is going to be headed up by, well, you guessed it, the top members of Every Town and other groups just like it. So let's go and talk about what's going on, who's going to be running it, and what they're going to be doing, and well, who came up with the idea to begin with. Let's get to it.

Now, real quick, before we get started, more than half the people that watch these videos are not yet subscribed. If you are interested in staying on top of your Second Amendment rights, hit that little subscribe button. It's free, it only takes a second, but it helps me out quite a bit. And that little alarm bell will let you know when new videos come out because obviously this topic isn't shared all that often. So I want to thank everybody out there for watching this video. Let's get to it.

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here. So if you thought I was exaggerating about what this office is intended for and that it's an office that's going to help promote and create gun control, let me just go ahead and show you guys who's in charge. So take a look at this, where it says Greg Jackson, executive director of the Community Justice Action Fund, and Rob Wilcox, the senior director for federal government affairs at Everytown for Gun Safety, are expected to hold key roles in this office alongside Feldman, who has worked on gun policy for more than a decade and still oversees the policy portfolio at the White House. The creation of this office was first reported by The Washington Post.

Now, they go on to say with the quote here: "A White House Office of Gun Violence Prevention would build on an already tremendous record of President Biden and Vice President Harris on gun safety," said Peter Ambler, executive director of Giffords. "This has been a top priority of ours for years, and it would provide an important center of gravity for leadership across the administration as the President and Vice President implement the historic bipartisan Safer Communities Act to push Congress to pass legislation to save lives. The hiring of Greg and Rob would show how seriously this administration takes its responsibility to address this crisis."

Now, you'll notice something interesting there: the people who are running this office hold one specific viewpoint. There is no opposing viewpoint. You didn't hear that there was a director from Everytown and then there was also the director from the GOA or the FBC. Now, it was only people with one specific viewpoint that their respective organizations have held since their inception, which is to infringe on people's constitutional rights. That's who's going to be running this office, and this office is only going to be coming up with ideas and ways to push things like the so-called bipartisan Safer Communities Act. This is something they've been asking for for quite a while now. As a matter of fact, Politico reports gun safety groups have pressed Biden to focus on the implementation of the hallmark gun legislation. They're talking about the bipartisan Safer Communities Act and have argued that such an office would help with coordination across federal agencies.

So, yep, it's going to be part of the federal government now, a new federal office where your tax dollars are going to go to pay the executives of Everytown and other agencies so that they can find new and creative ways in order to restrict one of your constitutional rights. Now, the good thing about that is because it's a federal office and because this new federal office has to be paid through our tax dollars, the House holds the power of the purse, meaning that they could simply withhold funding from this office so that this office couldn't exist. Now, whether or not they'll do that is still yet to be seen. But if they wanted to and if they actually had the conviction to do so and hold strong to it, they could withhold funding from that office, basically stop it from ever being created in the first place. It would just become an idea, and that would be it.

Now, this seems to be modeled after what California did. California did something very similar, and they've been pushing for something like this on the federal level for years. As a matter of fact, all of these different groups, they want to get their hands in there. So what they started doing is they started putting people in different positions of power within the government. But then they thought, you know what, let's just go ahead and streamline it. People know that we're here. Let's just go ahead and make our own office so that we can conduct our business from within government, and then we can go ahead and coordinate with different people, come up with different suggestions and ways to get bills on the floor and try and get them passed. And you know, we can advocate for what we want without any opposition from the other side whatsoever. That's basically what this office is all about, and you know, it's something that we really need to consider here because as you can see, this is going off the deep end.

So right, we've reached a level where now we're bringing in people to affect policy. These are again unelected people, unelected officials that are doing this, and whenever you have somebody who's unelected, that also means that they're unaccountable, right? So they're unaccountable to the people, and therefore, they don't really care what policy they come up with because it's not like they have to wait to see whether or not they're going to win as the incumbent come next cycle. Well, they don't have to worry about stuff like that. They're simply appointed, and they have their job. That's all there is to it until somebody comes around and says, "Hey, this seems to be pretty unconstitutional to me. We're going to go ahead and get rid of this office or we're going to simply defund it." We'll see what happens. Either way, this is going to be a big test for the House, I think, coming up to see what they do about this. So anyway, I wanted to share that with you and let you guys know about it, and I want to thank you all very much for watching. I really do appreciate it. If you haven't done so already, 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 I've been getting some questions in my inbox recently about some new gun control laws that were just passed in the state of California. People want to know what's going on with them and when they're going to take effect. So today, we're going to be talking about California's carry bill SB2 and the new 11 tax SB 28, which both recently passed. So let's get to it.

This video is proud to be sponsored by Mechanic Superstore. If you're sick of lying on your back working on your vehicle or maybe you just want to clean up your garage, check out their two-post lifts, four-post lifts, motorcycle lifts, and parking lifts. They have absolutely everything that you're going to need, including lifetime technical support. Now, if you're like me, you spend more time in the garage than you do in your home because that's where your passion for vehicles exists. But we don't always have enough space to get everything we want done. That's where getting a parking lift, a two-post lift, or a four-post lift, even a motorcycle lift, can help move some of that stuff out of the way.

One of my favorite things about Mechanic Superstore is they not only cater to the individual like you and I who want to have the best garage in the neighborhood, but they also cater to the professional. If you are a professional and you're looking to get your shop started completely with one stop, just check out their Deluxe shop starter combo. Now I'm going to put a link to Mechanic Superstore down below. If you want to save 75% off your first purchase, use code Gear Up 75, or for the military, save $100 using salute 100. Again, there'll be a link to Mechanic Superstore down below.

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here because I got a couple of messages recently from people who said that they went to their shop, they didn't see an 11 tax, they didn't see a price increase, and they're wondering what's going on. There are some people in California that think that once these laws pass, they take effect. So let's go ahead and talk about these two.

The first one is going to be SB2. Now SB2 has actually seen multiple iterations. The first one, which was introduced into the Senate and the Assembly back in December of 2015, actually had an emergency clause, which means that it had to receive a higher vote threshold, and that one ended up failing, which still kind of surprised me. So they removed that emergency clause, they made some changes and amendments, and then brought it back as SB2, and that's what just recently passed the Senate and the Assembly and what's currently sitting on the governor's desk. Now the thing with this one is the governor has already indicated that he plans on signing this, so we're almost positive that this one is actually going to become law, but it has not taken effect yet. The moment that it takes effect, we have a specific date, I will let you guys know what that date is.

When it comes to SB 28, this is one that I haven't really heard too much about from the governor, whether or not he's actually guaranteed to sign it or he's going to veto this one and let it pass just based on what he's signed in the past. I'm pretty sure he's going to sign it, but I'm not 100% positive. As a matter of fact, this is one that they've been trying since 2013, which is to increase or add an excise tax onto the sale of firearms or ammunition. So that one, SB 28, just passed the Senate and the Assembly as well. That's also sitting on the governor's desk, but we're not sure when or if he actually plans on signing that one. So that's why you're not seeing the changes at the shop quite yet because this one's going to require some procedural changes on how and how much they collect from FFLs and vendors. This one's not set to take effect until July 1st, 2024. After that, oh, guaranteed you're going to see those prices start to increase. But that's if the governor signs it. Again, I haven't seen anything concrete that says he's going to sign it, but just based on history, I would think that he is.

So just like always, if you live in California, keep your head on a swivel, and just remember there's no such thing as a stupid question because these things seem to change pretty much every single month, and it is extremely difficult to keep up with them. So if that's something that you're wondering, ask. Don't worry about how anybody's going to perceive your question. It's best to know what's going on in that state. So if you're somebody who wants to know what's going on at all times, you can always go ahead and subscribe, hit that little alarm notification that'll let you know when new videos come out. I try and stay up to date with what's California, New York, New Jersey, Illinois, and all these different states that are constantly passing these laws are up to, and I try and put them out as fast as possible as well so you guys will be up to date with the latest things.

So again, you know California, everything's always up in the air, so we'll see what happens. We know that SB2 is going to be signed; that one's going to go into law. Thankfully, there are lawsuits fighting back against that one already. But SB 28, not so sure. So again, I'll let you know as soon as that happens if it does. And I want to thank you all very much for watching. I really do appreciate it. Please like, subscribe, 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 we're back to talking about New York, another state just like California that just cannot catch a break.

Since June of 2022, gun confiscation has increased in New York by tenfold. That is a massive increase over prior years, and it is about to get worse. So let's go ahead and talk about what just happened and how it's going to get worse, and what you guys can expect. So let's get to it.

This video is sponsored by gunspot, absolutely one of the coolest websites that you guys will ever see. If you are into Second Amendment-related hobbies and traditions, you need to check out gunspot. Their options are incredible. Everything you need, you will find there. They have pages like the war room, the academy, and battle station. In the academy, you will find all sorts of really useful information. It is honestly a one-stop place to visit. So check out gunspot; you know how to find them.

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here. Over the past several years, New York has done everything in their power to expand on and increase the number of ERPOs (Extreme Risk Protection Orders), also known as red flag laws, against as many people as possible. Now, I say that these are illegal confiscations because there's no due process. I don't care if it goes before a judge. I don't care if somebody has to sign an affidavit. If the person who this is being enforced against, who's having their property taken away from them, has no clue that it's happening until somebody actually knocks on their door to relieve them of their privately owned property, then there's no due process when the person has to go to court after the fact in order to prove that they're not what that person said they are. Again, there's no due process, and to me, that is illegal confiscation. And like I said before, it has increased tenfold in New York just over the last year. As a matter of fact, we're still seeing hundreds, I mean several hundred people having their privately owned property removed from them because of these red flags in New York every single month.

But that's not good enough for New York. So what is Kathy Hogan going to do? Well, she decides that she's going to sign a new law to open things up a little bit more. Local today signed legislation removing a barrier to filling out an extreme risk protection order. So what she did was she eliminated all of the fees that are associated with it, and the fees were actually kind of hefty. So what you would have to do in the past is you would have to go to the court or wherever you go to file that ERPO, and then you would fill out an affidavit, you would sign it, and then you would pay a fee. Right? It's like a filing fee. That fee was $210, which sort of discouraged some people from going to do it because I mean, $210 is a lot of money to some people, right? So $210 is what they would have to pay over to the court, and then that would go before a judge. The judge would look over the affidavit and determine whether or not they were going to have that person's stuff removed. And well, most of the time, it was. Now, Kathy Hochul decided she's going to basically eliminate that $210 fee to encourage more people to go out and file these red flags or these ERPOs.

Now, this just happened, and the whole premise behind this is to again increase the number of confiscations that New York is able to carry out by eliminating one of those barriers that maybe some people had in their way. Now there's no barriers at all. You can have law enforcement, you could have somebody from the school, you can have a medical professional, or anybody. You can now go in and fill out one of those affidavits without any barriers, no fees or anything to kind of make them think about what they're doing before they do it. And they could just simply go in, fill out that affidavit, put it before a judge, and now somebody has their stuff confiscated from them, again, in my opinion, without due process because they have no idea what's going on.

So if you think that 350 or 380 per month, or whatever it is per month, is bad now, imagine what it's going to be now that it costs nothing. Now we saw recently when there was additional funding added to the promotion of these confiscations that confiscation started to increase more and more and more until we got to the point where it was 10 times more than last year. So now with this happening, all the increased advertising, and now you have the fact that it costs absolutely nothing, that number is going to double or triple, in my opinion. I think that number is going to skyrocket. And if you think about this in terms of months, right? Let's just say, on average, there's 400 people per month that lose their rights because of this in the state of New York. 400. That's 4,000 every 10 months, right? 4,800 people every single year. I mean, if you add that in the next 10 years, 48,000 people. 48,000 people in the next 10 years, assuming that it doesn't increase at all because of this, could lose their rights and then have to prove their innocence after the fact in New York.

So again, what they're doing is they're expanding and trying to increase the number of these that are being forced on the citizens. If they can't pass a law because it's unconstitutional, if they can't pass a law to simply take everybody's guns away, what they're going to do is they're just going to increase the number of red flags so that it's done in what they consider to be a legal way. And in the next 10 years, you'll see 48,000-plus people who've had their rights removed, and some of them will never get them back. I mean, that's just a fact. We've seen it in California where people, you know, find out afterwards that the person who filed it against you was maybe not telling the truth. And so when you went to defend yourself in court, it was proven that you're not a danger to yourself, right? So they decide that, okay, we're going to go ahead; we're going to drop that red flag on you. And guess what? They never get their stuff back. Or some people have been fighting for years and have never gotten their stuff back. And that's kind of what's going to happen here. It's going to be held by law enforcement, and you may never see it again, even if it turns out that that person maybe wasn't telling the truth.

So, it's really unbelievable to me what's happening. They just can't get enough, and they will just keep coming for more. So, you know, we have places like New York, California, Illinois, and so many others that will do everything that they can, and it bothers me a lot. So, I wanted to make you guys aware of that. Just be aware in New York; they're about to increase. So anyway, I wanted to tell you that. 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 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.