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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Social Media

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

Check out my Merch, Shirts, Mugs and More!

https://teespring.com/dashboard/stores

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 going to be talking about three new gun control laws that just took effect this week that include a complete ban on open carry. I mean these are three pretty bad ones in a state that I just don't talk about enough, so if you want to know what this state is and what those three new laws are, stay tuned.

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

One law that takes effect Sunday bans openly carrying pistols if you have a permit you can still carry but the gun can't be seen in public. Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here. So typically when I make videos about gun control of this magnitude, there's usually four or five states that are your major offenders, right? So you're talking about New York, California, Illinois, New Jersey, Hawaii is a pretty big one. But there are other states that gave up on the Second Amendment a long time ago, and they still managed to find ways to make things worse. So the state that we're talking about today that banned open car and created some other laws that just took effect this week is going to be Connecticut.

Connecticut is a state that we just don't talk about enough, but people in that state have had a pretty rough time. So let's go ahead and start off by talking about this whole ban on open carry. So obviously they don't like open carry because, for them, it feels sort of threatening, right? And that's what they've mentioned several times. They don't want people to feel uncomfortable.

Experts say this law is protecting people's first and second amendment rights. It has been used as a form of intimidation in the past. We've seen this happen at polling places, at protests, and so it does not do anything to prevent someone from exercising their Second Amendment right. So for them, that seems to be the biggest thing. Does it help people feel more comfortable? Because if it does, then it seems to me that, well, your constitutional rights just don't seem to matter anymore. And so by banning open carry and making people feel more comfortable, we're just going to go ahead and trample all over the Constitution. That's kind of what they're saying by making this law.

Now there is kind of a bright side to this or, you know, a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. There is currently a lawsuit in the state of California that has been going on for quite a while now. California's banned open carry for quite some time, and so this lawsuit's been making its way through the court system, and it's challenging California's ban on open carry. And it looks like we are about to see a big win in that case. Now, if that does happen and it's decided in California that open carry is protected by the Second Amendment, then that can be used for any case that challenges the ban on open carry in Connecticut. So again, a win in California would help speed up a victory in Connecticut. Obviously, the district courts are going to be a little bit different over there, and you know, things could always end up at the Supreme Court. But this, to you and I, I mean, we know this, right? That is clearly unconstitutional to ban open carry.

Now this next one is pretty much just as bad as the first one if you ask me, but it is Firearms rationing that's what they've instituted now in the state of Connecticut. So now they limit you to three per month, you can only get three per month, that's it. They cap you off after that. So if you go to fill out your 4473 and you do that a total of three times and you do it in the first week, that means you have to wait three more weeks before you can fill out another one and get something else that's new. So you are now capped off at three in the state of Connecticut. California, again, you can only buy one every 30 days, but Connecticut's sort of taking from that Playbook and saying that they're limiting you to three, as if somehow that doesn't violate your constitutional rights.

Now moving on to the last one, which just took effect, is going to be their new safe storage law. Now the problem with this particular safe storage law is that it differs from other states. There's a lot of states out there that have safe storage laws that say if you have people that are under a specific age in the house, then you have to keep things locked up so that they can't gain access to them. And if they do, then you're going to get in some kind of trouble. Well, in Connecticut, it doesn't matter who lives in your house. If you are not under immediate control of it, which means that it's currently on your person, it has to be locked up. You could be a, let's say a 75-year-old guy who's living in a house by himself. You've lived there by yourself for the last 10 years. You know, nobody ever comes in, nobody ever comes over. Well, this law still affects you, and if you don't have it locked up safely, okay, and something does happen, then it's somehow your fault and you are the one in trouble because now they've moved into your home.

When creating these laws, it's not just when you leave your house and you're out in public or on public property. Now it's what you're doing in your home that they want to regulate. And so, again, unlike other states where it's kind of focused on who lives in your house and who might have access to it, this one in Connecticut affects everyone.

So what this whole thing drives down to is the whole states rights arguments. And that's why you see different laws in every single state. I mean, you can go from one side of the country to the other and pass through a thousand different laws that you didn't even know existed because they say they have the right to do it because of state's rights. But no state has the right to violate people's constitutional rights, the Bill of Rights. That's the law of the land right there. No law that any state is allowed to supersede that, no law that any state passes is allowed to infringe on that, any one of our rights in the Bill of Rights. They're not allowed to do that. But for some reason, they use states rights as a kind of a stepping stone to violating the Constitution. So these are all going to be challenged in court almost guaranteed and we're going to try and turn each one of them over. That's why there's so many different groups out there right now that we should be supporting. So find the group that is local to you or find a group that, you know, does things on a national level that comes into your state and helps you out and join those groups because those groups right there are the ones that are actually taking these cases to court. I'm not saying any one specific one better than any other, but make sure that you join some group that is trying to help you guys out in court because that's the only way that these are going to be stopped. Because again, they'll just keep passing these laws as much as they can until somebody tells them that they can't. You know, I mean they're not allowed to violate the constitution bottom line right there and these laws are unconstitutional. So anyway, do your part, do what you can to try and fight back against this stuff, but I wanted to make you at least aware of it for now. 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, we've talked before about the 23 new gun control laws that were just recently signed into law in the state of California. Well, today we're going to be talking about two more of those, and they are absolutely as ridiculous as you could possibly imagine. I mean, it really gives you some insight into the imagination of California lawmakers and the stuff that they are willing to come up with to try and push their agenda.

Just to give you a little hint of one of the things that we're going to be talking about today: did you know that California just classified 3D printers as firearm-related products? Yeah, and that's just one of them. So, let's talk about what's going on.

This video is proud to be sponsored by Mechanic Superstore. If you're sick of laying 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 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 why don't we just start off with that whole 3D printer thing because it seems a little bit absurd to say that that is now considered a firearm-related product. But that's what it says in the bill, and that's what was just recently signed by the governor. So let's go ahead and take a look at what this bill actually says.

It says here, existing Law requires that any person who manufactures more than three firearms in a year to be licensed by the state as a manufacturer. But now the bill has changed that to say this bill would instead require anybody who uses a 3D printer or CNC milling machine to manufacture a firearm to be a licensed manufacturer. So they got rid of the whole three thing, and now if you even want to make one, you have to be a licensed manufacturer in the state of California.

But it doesn't stop there. It says this bill would add three-dimensional printers and CNC Milling machines as specified to the definition of firearms related products. Well, I mean, if that doesn't prove that California loves their regulations, I don't know what else will. You know it's one of those things where if they can simply change what the definition is so that it falls under a different category, then it can also fall under a different regulatory scheme. And that's what they do with their definitions in that state. You'll notice they change the definition of a lot of different things so that it then falls under a new category, and then they can have access to regulating it. And that's kind of what they're doing here.

Okay, so that was AB 1089. Now we're talking about AB 11483. So one thing California likes to do is they like to go through existing law and they like to see where they can maybe tighten it up a little bit to make it even difficult for people in that state to practice their fundamental rights. So the AB 11483, what it does is it changes the existing law surrounding the whole one and 30-day purchase scheme that California has. So if you're not aware, in California, if you want to go purchase something that's serialized and requires a background check and a 4473, you can only do one every 30 days. That means that if you start on day one and you fill out your 4473, you wait the ridiculous 10-day waiting period, and you pick it up from that moment where you filled out that application, you now have to wait 31 days because you can't do it on the 30th day. So on the 31st day, you can then fill out another 4473 and undergo another background check.

Well, they went ahead and added a little bit more to that. Now, one thing I want to note real quick is there's actually a new law starting in just months on January 1st, 2024, and it expands on this existing law as well. So it says here, commencing on January 1st, 2024, existing law will also apply this limitation to completed frames of receivers and firearm precursor parts. So that's what's going to be starting in January.

Now that we've already talked about what the existing law does, let's talk about what this bill would change. It says this bill would delete the private party transfer exemption to the 30-day prohibition. So in the past, if you were going through a private party transfer and let's say that you and another buddy went to an FFL to do this transfer, that one in 30 days didn't apply to you. It only applied when you were making a transaction between you and an FFL or a vendor. So that would be when the prohibition took place would be right there. But now they've expanded that to include everybody because we can't have two people walk in and go through background checks and we can't have that happen in less than 30 days. Now, this bill, which again was signed into law, does add some exemptions.

So if you're somebody who, let's say, your wife passed away, and she had a big collection, and you wanted to liquidate that collection because, well, you just need help making ends meet and everything, well, you could do that. You could get rid of everything or transfer it to somebody else. They could, whatever you… You can make exemptions like that. But as far as your private party stuff, they have completely closed that off, and now that also falls in the one in 30-day rule.

Now the big takeaway here is that this happens every single year. And while these two might not seem as big and as talked about as SB2 or SB92 or any of the other ones that change things around carry and stuff, they're still very big bills. And this happens all the time. I have been doing California videos for going on now 11 years, so I've been covering this every single year. Any change that's made, any new law that's added, any new law that's amended, anything that happens, I have been bringing it to you guys for now over a decade. And every single year, this stuff happens. Every single year, something changes. You get people that move in and out of the assembly and the senate in the state of California, and when they get there, they want to come up with some new way to say that they did something. And so what they do is they dig real deep into their imagination to come up with something that somebody hasn't come up with before. And a lot of times, that comes from existing law that they feel like is just too lax. It's too loose, you know, so we need to tighten it up. We need to button it up a little bit. And so they come out with stuff like this.

So while you have those big bills that everybody's kind of waiting to see whether or not they get signed and when they're going to become law and all that stuff, you're always going to end up with a dozen or more of these, you know, what I guess you consider smaller ones, that make changes to existing law that most people never even know about. And so it's really, really hard to keep track. I mean, if you're not somebody, you know, like you guys that are physically watching videos like this to learn about what else is coming out, you will not know about it. And so it's almost like a trap, right? Because who's going to pay attention to 23 every single year? Don't forget about the stuff that kind of happens, you know, kind of midseason or, you know, emergency sessions, things like that. Yeah, it's really hard to keep track in that state. And again, it is the state with the most laws like this in the entire country. And that number keeps growing, and it seems to be growing exponentially.

So while we talk about these different cases and lawsuits and things that are happening in California to overturn some of the bigger ones, don't forget about the smaller ones that are kind of happening almost behind the scenes, right? Those are the ones that you need to pay attention to as well because they even, though it might seem minor compared to some of the bigger ones, they're still infringing on your rights, and that matters, especially in a state where, you know, they're getting really upset that they seem to be losing in court. So just pay attention, understand what's going on, and know what's going on around you because you just don't want to end up getting yourself in trouble because, well, you just can't keep up.

So I wanted to share that with you today for those particular reasons, and 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, you know, it's difficult enough to live in a state that prohibits you from owning any type of magazine that can hold more than 10 rounds. But then, on top of that, they make it as difficult for you as possible to even get the rounds to put in it. So today, we're going to be talking about a big update in Rhode V. Bonta. If you don't know what that case is, it's a case that challenges California's background check scheme for ammunition. That's been a big problem in California all across the state. You're seeing a lot of false positives, a lot of people walking into the shop to get what they need, and they're forced to walk out empty-handed, even though they're law-abiding eligible people. It's been a big problem; it's now a big problem in New York. But again, this case, Rhode V. Bonta, it's been going on for quite a bit. It's currently sitting in front of Judge Benitez, and we have some pretty big updates, like I was saying before. So let's talk about what's going on and what we can expect. I think California's ammunition background checks are over.

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

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here. Now you might remember that I made a video just over a month ago talking about how the plaintiffs and the defendants—the state being the defendants in this case—met before Judge Benitez. The reason why is because the state wanted more time to find some type of historical analog post-Bruan that could prove that their law should exist as it is today because Bruan says that there has to be some type of historical relevance that existed between the ratification of the Second Amendment in 1791 to the Reconstruction Era. If California couldn't find a similar law that existed and was held up back then, then their law is fundamentally unconstitutional as it stands today. California wanted more time to be able to do that, even though this case has been going on for a long time. But you have to remember that a majority of this case existed prior to Bruan, so that wasn't necessarily a requirement. Well, being a patient person, Judge Benitez granted them that time to do that. And I got to be honest, when they came back with their reply just recently, it's absolutely stunning the stuff that they came up with as some type of historical analog. I mean, it is unbelievable and racist.

So, we got both responses in, and now everything is before Benitez, and now it's basically over. We are waiting now for a decision in this case from Benitez, whether or not this whole ammo background thing is unconstitutional. But let me go ahead and talk to you about a couple of the responses both from the state, the defendants, and from the plaintiffs in this case.

Okay, so let's just briefly summarize California's responses. And I've got to be honest with you, like I said before, a lot of them were just racist. I mean, they were from an era where the slaves who were just freed weren't actually considered to be part of the people under the Constitution. And so, a lot of southern states were creating laws that would keep them from owning arms because again, they weren't protected by the Constitution as the people. And we know that that's no longer the case, and it hasn't been the case for quite a while. But California still wants to use that to justify their background checks as they stand today. A lot of the other stuff that was presented by California really, to me, seemed to have no relevance to the law at all. So, it didn't serve as a historical analog whatsoever, and I think that's pointed out very well by the plaintiffs in this case. And you guys will see that if I just read you just the first paragraph here of California, or excuse me, of the plaintiff's response of Ro's response to the state. So, the plaintiffs in this case, the ones who are trying to overturn California's law, say the state again fails to identify a single such law in its new declarations, let alone any tradition of such laws. Not one of the laws cited by the state's purported experts remotely resembles any of California's first-of-their-kind laws. That is the end of the analysis here. Now the plaintiffs go on in this final response that was just filed to Judge Bonz by basically tearing down all of the historical analogs and declarations that were given by California's so-called experts in this case. I'll give you one of them; this is probably the one that came the closest because they all fell completely short of being even somewhat relevant to California's laws that stand today. And they didn't even use the correct timeline, so a lot of them just don't even count, to begin with.

But it says here, number one, the Spitzer declaration. Spitzer's basic premise is that firearms and ammunition licensing laws have been prevalent throughout American history. As an initial matter, few of the licensing laws that Spitzer cites are from before 1868. Now, like I said in the beginning, we're talking about Bruan; it's from the ratification of the Second Amendment all the way up to the Reconstruction Era, about 1868. So if the law was created after that, it doesn't really serve any relevance to Bruan at all. So it says here, according to Bruan, they are thus of little value. What's more, Spitzer exaggerates the prevalence of permitting laws. In fact, few of the laws he claims to be permitting laws actually are; rather, they are comprised of no-discharge laws, basically firearms prevention laws, hunting license laws, and others.

So, I just gave you one example of some of the declarations that the state of California provided to Judge Bonz to try and say that their law should be allowed to stand. So we have stuff that prevents fire here; we have relevance to old hunting laws that are not even from the period that Bruan lays out for us. And so, we also have things like Native Americans and people who were just freed being not considered the people; they were subject to different laws at the time and things like that. And that's some of the stuff that California used and what California thinks should still apply today. I mean, I don't know if that tells you what you need to know about California, but it sure tells me a lot. If they're willing to take those old laws that were completely unconstitutional at the time and no longer exist today to say that their laws should stand as they are, I mean, these laws were even turned over. So California is almost admitting to the fact that, well, their law is like that and should be turned over. And so, what the plaintiffs, what Ro is asking for here is a summary judgment. And so that's going to be different than the injunctive relief that you've seen in like looking for in like Miller and Duncan, right? Where Benitez comes out and he grants the injunction, and that gets appealed. What they're saying is that Benitez needs to rule from the bench on this one and simply overturn the law as it stands today. No need for an injunction; we've already proven that it's unconstitutional. There's no historical analog; there's no historical relevance to California's law as it stands today. And you should just decide this one and put out an order saying that it's unconstitutional and just skip the injunction altogether. That's what they're asking for, and I think that's what they're going to get in this case. And that would have a pretty big effect on any lawsuits that might be filed in New York, given that New York is facing some of the same problems that California is these days. So again, this is huge. Basically, these are the final arguments that California has to justify why their background checks should exist. And if that's the best that they have, well, then it's laughable. It's laughable at best. The constitutional arguments from the plaintiffs here are extremely strong, and the defense from California is about as weak as wet cheese on a windy day. I mean, it's just not going to hold anything. So, I think we are going to see a summary judgment from Benitez in this one, and that'll be it for the law.

So, this is all very exciting; we're seeing a lot of things happening in California right now with Duncan and Miller and Rhode. And we're just seeing everything is basically going backward for the State of California, which is fantastic for us people who believe in freedom. But not so good for those people who've been pushing these laws on Californians for the past 60 or 70 years. So, I wanted to share that with you. I am very excited that all of the arguments are in, and now we're just waiting on the order from Benitez. As you know, that could take some time, but I'm still optimistic. So thanks again 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 immediatelyP

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. So today, I've got some very big news that I think most of you are going to find extremely exciting. This is in regards to mock V Garland, which is a case that's challenging the ATF's clearly unconstitutional brace Rule.

Now, we've already seen an injunction from the fifth circuit court of appeals, but now we have something that, in my opinion, is even better and I think is going to lead to the end of the brace rule very soon. So let's talk about what just happened.

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 $5,000 of free silver on your first order. So call them now, click the link in the description, or call 866-856-257. That's 866-856-257 or text "copper" to 65532.

Okay, so let's go talk about what's going on here. In the beginning of mock V Garland, the FPC and others filed a lawsuit in The District Court of Texas to either get a summary judgment, basically overturning the ATF's brace rule, or to get an injunction stopping enforcement of the brace rule. They said that it violated the APA (Administrative Procedures Act) because originally when they came out with their opinion, the ATF's rule had some type of worksheet with it and a bunch of different things, and people left comments about that. All of the comments were about that particular iteration of the rule.

Well, after the comments were submitted and everything was done, the ATF went ahead and basically changed everything. They got rid of that paperwork, they got rid of a bunch of stuff, and the final rule that came out was completely different than what people were allowed to comment on. The FPC and the people who filed the mock V Garland lawsuit said that well, that violates the Administrative Procedures Act and that it should be considered invalid.

Well, the district court at the time decided that they didn't see that the FBC had a likelihood of success on the merits, so they denied their claim. They denied their injunction, and obviously, they didn't issue a summary judgment. So, the FBC brings it up to the fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, saying that again, the ATF violated the APA and is also violating people's Second Amendment rights. So again, they're bringing this lawsuit on APA grounds and they're bringing it on Second Amendment grounds.

The fifth circuit goes ahead, and they take a look at everything and decide that, yes, as a matter of fact, we are going to allow for an injunction. This injunction is not going to be nationwide; it's not going to be so broad as to cover everybody in the country, but it will cover the plaintiffs, their families, it will cover FPC members, and things like that. So it was broad in terms of the fact that it did cover FBC members, which is quite a few people, and it covered the plaintiffs themselves and people in their household, families, and so forth.

But what the district court, or what the fifth Circuit Court decided to do was they decided to send it back down. Basically, what they did is they said, "Hey District Court, you got it wrong. We need you to take another look at this. We believe that the FBC and mock actually have a good chance of success on the merits, and we want you to take another look at this. We're going to give you some time to look at it. You go ahead and make whatever decision you want. It's actually written in there. They said, 'This is not something that you should take as we're telling you that they need to get an injunction. We're just telling you to take another look at it based on the information that we have here.'"

So again, they didn't force the lower courts to do anything the lower court didn't want to do. Well, that District Court just came out with their decision late last night. Now, try and keep in mind that the fifth circuit's injunction was still in place while the district court was kind of taking a second look at this. So again, FPC members and others who are involved in this were all covered as everything was going on.

Now we have the decision from the district court level, and the district court basically decided that they were going to also provide injunctive relief in this case, and that is the big breaking news. Basically, what the district court said is we went ahead and we looked at what the fifth circuit did, we agree with what the fifth circuit did, and so we're actually going to provide an injunction in this case that is equal and similar to the fifth circuit's injunction.

Let me go ahead and read you a little bit from this order, and it'll show you exactly who is covered by this. Now, one thing I want to keep in mind while we take a look at this order is that now we have two major courts agreeing on a particular matter. We have the district court and we have the appellate court both saying that mock has a good chance of success on the merits, meaning that if for some reason the state or the government decides to appeal back to the fifth, the fifth has already said that Mock has a good chance of success on the merits, and so more than likely they're going to deny the government's appeal in this case.

Here's the conclusion from The District Court: "The court holds that each plaintiff has demonstrated entitlement to preliminary injunctive relief against the government defendants' enforcement of the final rule that the United States court of appeals for the fifth circuit determined to be invalid under the administrative procedures act. For the foregoing reasons, the court grants the motion for preliminary injunction. Accordingly, the court orders that the government defendants, the Attorney General of the United States, the U.S. Department of Justice, the ATF, and its officers, servants, and employees are hereby enjoined from implementing or enforcing against the firearm policy coalition Inc. and all of its members the provisions in 27 CFR 478.11 and 479.11 that the United States court of appeals for the fifth circuit has determined are unlawful."

It goes on to cover each one of the named plaintiffs. So maximum defense and William T. Moach, and so forth. It goes through that and says, "This injunctive relief shall not extend to any VI individual prohibited from possessing firearms under 18 USC 922. The injunctive relief shall take effect immediately and remain in effect pending the conclusion and final disposition of all claims of cause of action before the court in these review proceedings. The court waives the security requirement," and it was signed by Judge Reed O'Conor on the 2nd of October.

Now, try to keep in mind here that what the ATF is saying is that what they did is not legislative in nature; it's clearly legislative in nature, and the courts have recognized that. They also recognized the fact that they violated the APA; they also recognized the fact that this violates the Second Amendment. They have realized that what they've done here is they've way overstepped their boundary, and so what they're doing is they're kind of putting them in check.

If you are somebody who is an FPC member, you are covered by this injunction. There's other injunctions right now that have currently taken place, lawsuits filed by the GOA and other groups as well. So we're seeing pretty much all across the country right now injunctions being enforced against the final Rule, and again, they're on different grounds from grounds from the APA to the Second Amendment. So there's a lot of things going on right here, but the big takeaway is that we have multiple courts now across the country that have decided that what the federal government has done here through this agency is unconstitutional and it violates the Second Amendment in the APA.

We have a consensus now amongst the lower courts, and so I think what we're going to see here very soon is we're going to see this overturned. But what's the FPC's response? Well, I had to search for that, went to their Twitter, looked down a little bit, or X or whatever it is now, went down a little bit and actually saw where they commented on somebody who had that same question. Let's just take a quick look at what the FPC is actually saying in regards to when this is going to be finished.

So we have a comment here under the FPC's post by CMDR Goat where it says, "When does this go away permanently?" and the FPC responded with, "The district court and the Circuit Court both in agreement about the likelihood of our success. We look forward to making this happen ASAP."

Well, what does that mean? Basically, what it means is it's not being enforced on its members as of right now, but it looks like we have a good chance of winning on the merits. So it's just going to be however long the case takes to be final. Obviously, there's still going to be Discovery and there's going to be oral arguments and things that are still going to happen after this. They have to still go through the case. This didn't overturn it, but what it did is it put it on hold, and so the case is going to move forward now, and there's everything standard that typically happens in a case is going to happen, and then at the end, the judge will make his final decision.

In my opinion, just based on what we've seen in this injunction, it looks like we're going to win this one. Now, obviously, the government's not going to like that very much, and so they're going to try and appeal to the fifth circuit, but the fifth circuit's kind of already weighed in on this. They've already said, "Hey, we believe they have a good chance of winning on the merit," so whether they take it up or not and continue this on is still yet to be seen. But if they do take it on, we have, again, a fairly good chance of winning on the merit, and so I think that this is going to be over sooner rather than later.

Things have been kind of expedited here just because of the nature of this having to create new laws essentially through this Rule and new punishments and new requirements and everything. This kind of has to be settled pretty quickly. It's not going to be one of those five-year things like we've seen in California, five or six years before we even get close to being final. I think we're going to see this finalized fairly soon. So I'm really excited about it, and as an FPC member, somebody who is covered by this injunction, I'm even more excited about it.

Again, this is just another reason why you really need to join whatever group you can, even if you can join multiple groups. Obviously, that would be better if you could be covered by the Goa and the FPC and all others. That'll pretty much cover your bases. But again, it shows why being part of these organizations is great for you in more ways than just helping them fight these things in court.

Again, very big news, extremely exciting. I wanted to bring that to you guys, and I want to thank you all very much for watching. I really do appreciate it. Please like, subscribe, you guys have a great day.

In 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.