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.

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.