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

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. So I'm out here in the desert today, working on some reviews for you guys, and I thought I would touch on this whole New Mexico thing because there's some things that I don't think people are talking about too much that need to be talked about.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. So it is exciting to finally be able to bring you some good news out of the state of California. We just had a major victory, and this is going to lead to some big changes that I don't think the California politicians are going to like very much.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. So today, I have a huge update in the Second Amendment case in the state of California. You know, there are so many cases right now in California that are challenging these unconstitutional laws that sometimes we forget about some, even the big ones. And this is one that hasn't been talked about for quite a while, but it's a big problem in the state of California, and that is the one in 30 law.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. So, it's because of that guy and other so-called Republicans like him that we now have the ATF dropping another brand new rule. The ATF had recently published an advanced proposal for a rule, and now they have published the proposal for the rule and are allowing comments on it. So today, we're going to be talking about what it is, how the bipartisan Safer Communities Act is involved in this, and what exactly is going on. Because, according to this new rule, it turns out that law-abiding citizens overnight could become felons. Let's talk about it.

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

Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here. Not that long ago, Congress passed the so-called bipartisan Safer for Communities Act. They all touted it as something good that wouldn't infringe on anybody's Second Amendment rights. It was completely benign. Its key provisions are hugely popular with the American people. It contains zero new restrictions, zero new waiting periods, zero mandates, and zero bans of any kind for law-abiding gun owners. But in reality, what it did is it opened the door for even more gun control.

These are people who are supposed to understand how bills are written and how words have meaning and meaning has an effect, right? But they either didn't care that this was going to happen, they knew it was going to happen but didn't care, or they were just ignorant. One of the things that the bipartisan Safer Communities Act did is it changed the definition of who is considered a firearms dealer. Now, the problem there is that a lot of us buy, sell, trade firearms. Maybe to get something else that we want or maybe just because we have a big collection and getting a little bit short on funds. If you do that now and you're not keeping paperwork and you're not registering as a dealer, you're going to be in some serious trouble. We're talking about massive financial problems, $250,000 fines, and more.

A lot of people are asking, "What's going on here? What exactly is considered a dealer under the new definition?" Now, they're saying that this all falls under the GCA. The GCA has basically said that dealers are somebody who basically make a profit and derive their livelihood from these transactions. And now, they've changed it to anybody who basically is getting a profit from these transactions. The way that they have it defined is so vast, it's so wide open, and so open to interpretation that pretty much anybody who transfers anything, even back to an FFL, could be considered a dealer.

Let me just point out some of the examples that they give in the ATF's own proposed rule itself. So, let me just go ahead and put this up on the screen. I believe this is going to be number four on their list here. So, if you do any of these, then you are somebody who is violating the GCA under this new proposed rule where it says repetitively sells or offers to sale firearms within 30 days after they are purchased. Simply getting rid of it after 30 days, you bought it, you hate it, you're going to get rid of it, that's enough to get you on that list as a dealer right there. Anything that's new or even like new in their original packaging. So, if it's newer, like new in its original packaging, that'll do it right there. And then, see that are of the same or similar kind, make, manufacturer, model, caliber, gauge, and action, and type, i.e., the classification of firearm or rifle. Those are just four of the simple ones that I wanted to show you. Now, that's just four of the more easy to understand examples.

There's a lot more going on in that 109-page rule, so there is a lot going on there, a lot to understand. But like I said before, it is also extremely vague. These are the things that I could find that were a little bit more specific. But what you have to understand here is like things like number four in that list right so those are I think it was a b or c maybe it was C but the one that says like or similar items right so let's say that I bought two of something okay two of the same thing maybe it's just because I watched a video game and I thought I could go akimbo with something and I was just trying to be technical whatever it is it's a free country I got it because I wanted to or because they were the last two in the store maybe they weren't going to get any more so I got both of them and then later on down the road I decide you know what that was probably a stupid idea to do that so I'm gonna go ahead and get rid of them just that alone the fact that you have two of the same thing or two of the similar thing within the same classification that alone can make you fall as a dealer and so as you can see this really opens the door to just about anybody getting rid of pretty much anything at any time to anyone including somebody with license so it's just absolutely out of control what they have going on here.

They have a website, I guess that's set up to accept comments, and so you guys can head over there and comment, and there are a list of requirements. I'll put a link directly to the proposed rule down below so you can read it because there's a list of requirements that they have. They have you reference the CFR number, you have to reference what you're talking about, which proposed rule, and stuff like that. And those things have to be in that information that you provide in your response to this proposed rule. So, I'll put that down below; you guys can read that, and it's got the website there as well so that you can leave your comment. But that's exactly what I suggest you do.

These people again in Congress that kept telling us that absolutely nothing's gonna happen and law-abiding citizens aren't going to see any effects from this whatsoever but it's going to keep people safe have lost their minds. They have lost their minds because the exact opposite is happening. It incentivizes states to pass red flag laws; it'll give them money if they do so. They say that within those red flag laws there's due process. States will receive new money for Crisis Intervention programs of their own choosing, and if they choose to use the money for so-called red flag laws, those laws will have to meet a new higher standard. But we know that if you don't even find out about it until after the fact, where's due process in that?

But it incentivizes states to pass something that they don't have quite yet. It's led to new definitions, new ATF rule-making, it's led to changes in the GCA and updates and all sorts of stuff. So everybody who looked you in the eye or everybody who looked in the camera and said that this is not going to have an effect on our constitutional rights at all was lying. That's basically what it comes down to because as you can see right here it's already within a year having a major effect. And another thing that's going to happen here is that this is going to lead to a registry, and I'll tell you why because everybody that has to do something, let's say if you want to get rid of a couple things and maybe it makes you fall under this particular category, you're going to have to get a license. You're going to have to keep all the record-keeping, all the bookkeeping; you're going to have to put down all the serial numbers, all the relevant information and data that pertains to that particular transfer.

So guess what? There's going to be more record-keeping, there's going to be more names, more numbers, and more things that are going to be searchable pretty much anytime. So, while it's just a small definition change that's being made here to who is considered what, it has massive implications, and I wanted to let you guys know about that. So check out the rule, check out that link, check out the rule for yourself, read it for yourself, find the examples, and then go leave a comment and let them know what you think about it. Now just FYI, if you go off the rails in your comment, they're just going to trash it. So if you go off the rails and you just let them know what you really think, which is what we all really want to do, they're not going to disregard your comment altogether. Try and keep it civil to the point and let them know where you land on this, you know, but make sure that it's something that they're going to hang on to, that they can publish, that they can read. Anyway, 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 we have a new development coming out of the state of California, and California is at it yet again, trying to impose their own version of gun control on the entire country. Even this reporter can see what's going on. These are laws that are already in place in California, but the idea is to make them nationwide. Yeah, even she knows what's going on.

So today, we're going to be talking about what just happened with the 28th Amendment and what this actually means. It's not that this is going to pass; it has a snowball's chance of actually making it through. So what's the backstory? Well, there's something going on behind the scenes here that I think is leading to something even bigger. Let's talk about what's going on.

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

The majority of the residents of our country, of Americans, of all of our brothers and sisters across this nation, want the kind of common-sense protections that are built into this resolution. Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here. And I want to make this very clear. I don't think this has anything to do with an actual 28th Amendment at all. I think you guys have probably heard about the 28th Amendment by now, which was proposed by Governor Gavin Newsom, which would essentially add gun control to the Constitution, making gun control part of our entire country. So that's what he's trying to do.

Now, what I think is actually happening here is that I think he's using this to sort of build and prop up his platform if he decides to run for president. So he wants to be able to say, "Look what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to make things better for the country, even from my own home state. I was trying to make things better for the country by adding gun control to the Constitution." I think that's what's going on here, and it's just simply a talking point and something that he can stand on to say, "Hey, look what I did in my state, and look what I'm trying to do for the rest of the country."

Nonetheless, there was a committee meeting just yesterday where they got together for a vote on the 28th Amendment and whether or not to advance it to a constitutional convention. Now, what's interesting here is what these people had to say, and let me tell you, it is an absolute supermajority in the state of California. As a matter of fact, on this committee, I believe there's seven people. There is only one Republican. If you think that she actually has a chance of changing anybody's mind, well, think again. It's just absolutely not going to happen. It's just simply an echo chamber in most state buildings in California. That's it. That's it. Everybody's just kind of whispering the same thing back and forth to each other without the fear of any type of opposition, and that was the case here.

There was one Democrat who decided not to vote for it because he was worried about this, "We note the same extremists that have completely rewritten the Second Amendment also would like to rewrite reproductive health access, LGBTQ rights. They want to get rid of the separation of church and state. They want to undermine voting rights." And so, for these reasons, I won't be able to support this today. And if you just want a quick glimpse into the mind of California politicians, just watch this little small clip. That'll pretty much explain everything to you.

"The majority of the residents of our country, of Americans, of all of our brothers and sisters across this nation, want the kind of common-sense protections that are built into this resolution."

Now, I don't see anything wrong with these people. They seem like completely rational, well-rounded, educated people to me, and people that look like they have our best interests at heart. So you really should listen to them. They know what they're talking about.

In some cases, I've got to be honest, I don't even blame California politicians for thinking that these things are actually true or thinking that these things are what their constituents want to hear because a lot of their constituents actually do want to hear this stuff. And the fact that they just keep getting voted into office every single year just sort of solidifies the frame of mind of thinking, "Hey, if I take away the rights of the people that live in this country, then I'm doing them a favor by making them safer," as if freedom and safety are supposed to go hand in hand. As a matter of fact, freedom and safety are their kind of complete opposites, but they don't see it that way. They want to force safety upon you by any means necessary, even if that means removing your freedom altogether. That's just the way that California works.

But nonetheless, it doesn't really have a chance of going through. What they're trying to do is they're trying to puff out their chest, they're trying to make themselves seem important. "Look at these big, bold things that we're trying to do in the state of California," while really just creating, again, a platform for somebody to run on. And I think that's what we have going on here because, in reality, you need two-thirds of the state legislatures to do the same thing to be able to pass this through. As of right now, I don't see that happening, given the fact that over half of the country, as it stands right now, observes constitutional carry. And so I highly doubt that those states are going to be jumping on board with this. Now, I can't say in the next 10, 15, or even 20 years that there might be some type of cultural shift that will change things, but as of right now, we know that that's not going to happen.

So they can continue to puff out their chest and say what they want, but our Constitution protects us from the government. It is not the other way around. If you look at the Constitution, it is rules for government. It is not rules for us. There are no rules in the Constitution for the people. That's not the way that our Bill of Rights works. That's not the way the Constitution works. It tells the government what they are not allowed to do, and one of those things is infringe on our rights. And so it is really interesting to see the perversion of history and freedom and the way that our Founders intended to have this country run be just completely twisted in one state because people keep voting these people in there. And that just gives them a little bit more sense that what they're doing is somehow considered right, and they will walk all over the Constitution just to make that happen. So, again, you can kind of see in the minds of these people what they think they're actually doing and what they think that they would actually accomplish by this. And their constituents, the ones that actually support them, absolutely lap it up.

So again, that passed committee. It's more than likely going to pass the state houses, and we're going to see that go through completely in the state of California. Where it goes after that, I don't know. There are some other states out there that I would say would probably go along with it. I think that New York and Illinois, possibly New Jersey, maybe even Washington, places like that, might go along with something like this. But getting close to that two-thirds majority, I think is where you're going to find the near impossibility.

So again, they voted to pass it through even though it's unconstitutional to create a constitutional amendment like that. They're going to do it anyway and try to impose their will on absolutely everybody while simultaneously creating a platform for their leader. So I wanted to let you guys know about that, and I want to thank you all very much for watching. I really do appreciate it. Please like, subscribe, and have a great day.

2-POINT RIFLE SLINGS (QD CONNECT)

The Phase 5™ 2-Point Rifle Sling with QD swivel attachment points. This slings' adjustment hardware allows a weapon to be carried close to the operator's body or quickly adjusted away from the body creating ample room for movement or gear. These slings feature a heavy-duty 1.5" webbing for comfort, two QD swivels for easy attachment to most Modern Sporting Rifles, a rounded metal slide for fixed adjustments to the overall length and a spring-loaded cam buckle for quick adjustments during use.

Heavy duty push button swivels "QD Connect"

*Please note color dye lots will differ.

Webbing Width: 1.5"

Shortest Overall Length: 33.5"

Longest Overall Length: 61"