Copper Jacket TV - ATF Just Dropped "New Rule" And Its Bad
The ATF has once again proposed a new rule that will have a massive effect on how commerce is managed. This rule will basically ban "private sales" and create an expanded registry through paperwork. See the proposed rule here - https://www.atf.gov/rules-and-regulat... -- USCCA - https://www.uscca.com/copperjacket Social Media INSTAGRAM - https://www.instagram.com/thedailysho... Check out my Merch, Shirts, Mugs and More! https://teespring.com/dashboard/stores NOTICE: I am "NOT" a lawyer, and this should not be considered legal advice. These are my opinions. (DISCLAIMER: This post may contain paid advertisements or affiliate links. What is an affiliate link? It means that if you click on one of the product links, Copper Jacket TV will receive a small commission at no extra cost to you. This helps support the channel and allows awesome future content. Thank you for the support!
DO NOT try anything you see in this video at home. All work should be performed by a trained professional. Disclaimer: These videos are strictly for educational and entertainment purposes only. Imitation or the use of anything demonstrated in my videos is done AT YOUR OWN RISK.. These videos are free to watch and if anyone attempts to charge for this video notify us immediately.
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.
Copper Jacket TV - California Passes 28th Amendment Listen What They Say
The state with the strictest "gun control" laws in the country would like to export those same rules to the rest of the nation through a 28th amendment. We all know it has no chance of making it through the entire process so what really going on here. -- USCCA - https://www.uscca.com/copperjacket Social Media INSTAGRAM - https://www.instagram.com/thedailysho... Check out my Merch, Shirts, Mugs and More! https://teespring.com/dashboard/stores NOTICE: I am "NOT" a lawyer, and this should not be considered legal advice. These are my opinions. (DISCLAIMER: This post may contain paid advertisements or affiliate links. What is an affiliate link? It means that if you click on one of the product links, Copper Jacket TV will receive a small commission at no extra cost to you. This helps support the channel and allows awesome future content. Thank you for the support!
DO NOT try anything you see in this video at home. All work should be performed by a trained professional. Disclaimer: These videos are strictly for educational and entertainment purposes only. Imitation or the use of anything demonstrated in my videos is done AT YOUR OWN RISK.. These videos are free to watch and if anyone attempts to charge for this video notify us immediately.
Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. So 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.
Copper Jacket TV - Miller V. Bonta California "Assault Weapon" Ban Finally
We finally have movement in a monumental case out of California, Miller v. Bonta. This case has been dormant for months and people have been waiting patiently for something to happen. It looks like we may have that something in the form of an order soon.
-- USCCA - https://www.uscca.com/copperjacket
Social Media
INSTAGRAM - https://www.instagram.com/thedailysho...
Check out my Merch, Shirts, Mugs and More!
https://teespring.com/dashboard/stores
NOTICE: I am "NOT" a lawyer, and this should not be considered legal advice. These are my opinions.
(DISCLAIMER: This post may contain paid advertisements or affiliate links. What is an affiliate link? It means that if you click on one of the product links, Copper Jacket TV will receive a small commission at no extra cost to you. This helps support the channel and allows awesome future content. Thank you for the support!
DO NOT try anything you see in this video at home. All work should be performed by a trained professional. Disclaimer: These videos are strictly for educational and entertainment purposes only. Imitation or the use of anything demonstrated in my videos is done AT YOUR OWN RISK.. These videos are free to watch and if anyone attempts to charge for this video notify us immediately.
Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. So today, I've got an update for you on one of the most anticipated cases we've seen across this country - a case challenging California's so-called assault weapons ban, which is Miller v. Banta or Miller v. Becerra. This case, which has been pretty much dormant since March 15th, 2023, finally has some movement, and I think we're going to be seeing some pretty good things out of this, and I believe that the order is going to come down very soon. So, let's talk about what happened.
Now, real quick, I just want to say thank you all very much for watching. If you're watching this video and you're not subscribed yet, hit that subscribe button. We do videos pretty much every day during the week. Hit that little bell notification, and that'll let you know when the new videos come out. It's free, it only takes a second, but it helps me out quite a bit. Also, check out the main sponsor of this channel down below, which is the USCCA. With your membership, you get that self-defense liability insurance, which is absolutely priceless.
Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here. This case originally started as Miller v. Becerra and was filed back in 2019. So, we've been waiting a long time to get some type of relief out of this case. There are other cases out there in California, which are just as important, that have been waiting since 2016, 2015. I mean, these things take forever, and I think a lot of our patience is kind of running out. We want to know what's going on.
Now, you talk about Duncan, you talk about Miller - these are cases in which Judge Benitez has already weighed in on. So they're just kind of back at him now, and we're all wondering why it's taking from March till now before we actually hear anything in this case. I've discussed that in videos in the past where I think he is wording this absolutely perfectly so that when it does probably go up to the Ninth Circuit on appeal, it's going to be pretty much bulletproof. I think that's what's taking so long. I think that's what he's doing here, but again, that's just my best guess.
So again, it's been a while since we've seen any movement. Now all of a sudden, we have these documents that have been entered on the 22nd of August and on the 25th of August. Now, on the 25th of August, Benitez has entered an order which absolutely smacked down Gifford. Now, like I said before, I believe Benitez made up his mind quite a while ago, but it's this order right here which really solidifies it for me and makes me think that we are going to see a win very soon in the state of California, and it's going to be massive.
So it says here, "Proposed Amicus Curiae Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence has moved for reconsideration of the August 3rd, 2020, order denying its motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief. Courts have broad discretion to consider amicus briefs and appoint amicus curiae. The existing parties are well equipped to present arguments and expertise; therefore, the Court denies this motion." Now, you might be thinking to yourself, "Big deal, so Benitez didn't let the Giffords Law Center jump in on this one." Well, it is kind of a big deal because what he is saying is that both parties have this covered. We don't need any more help. Everything that has been said or will be said has already been presented, and so all of the facts and all of the discovery and all of the evidence is already there. We do not need your help.
Now, obviously, he denied this back in 2020, so Giffords basically wanted to jump on the side of California and kind of help California keep this ban in place. And back then, Benitez said, "Nope, we don't need you." So they come back again and they want to say, "Hey, you know, we didn't—you denied us in the past, we want to be added again." So we're going to try and get at it again. He says, "No, we don't need you. Both parties have this covered." Okay, we don't need you, which again leads me to believe that his decision is already made.
So if his decision is already made, he is smacking down Giffords, and he is, you know, basically taking all of this time to prepare his order. It looks like from everything that I'm seeing that we're going to see that order very soon. Now, everybody's wondering, just like with the mags, are we going to see some type of Freedom week when it comes to this particular ban? Now, I've seen different opinions of people saying, "Yes," and people are kind of on the opposite side, saying, "No, it's going to be a stay or appealed pretty much immediately." He might even stay his own order, but I believe that he is not going to stay his own order this time, and I believe that California is going to have to appeal to the Ninth Circuit, and the Ninth Circuit is going to have to take a look at this. And if the Ninth Circuit takes a look at all of the documents and all the preparation that Benitez has done here and they use text, history, and tradition, which is what they did in a case recently out of Hawaii when it came to butterfly knives—they used text, history, and tradition and sided with the Second Amendment on that one—then it is very possible that, at least en banc, the panel for the Ninth Circuit might uphold Benitez's order.
So in the past, when Benitez wrote an order, sometimes he would stay his own order because he knew the Ninth Circuit is just going to use the two-step approach, the balancing approach, and that his order more than likely is just going to be overturned by a court that has an agenda. But now we know that the way that the court has to operate is going to be a little bit different. So I believe, in my own personal opinion, that we are maybe going to see a Freedom week. Obviously, I can't say it for sure, but I have a feeling that we might see something similar to a Freedom week out of this and then possibly even let the injunction stand because that's what Benitez is going to be ordering here. I believe he's going to order an injunction against the state from enforcing the ban, and I believe that the state is going to appeal to the Ninth Circuit, and that three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit en banc is going to look at it, and I have a feeling that they're going to uphold the injunction, which means that people in California would pretty much be free to get what they want. They'd be able to take off any of the restricted items, little pieces that keep things compliant in that state, and that would pretty much be the end of that until it went to a full panel of the Ninth Circuit and then, who knows, possibly up to the Supreme Court. I doubt it would go to the Supreme Court because the Supreme Court has pretty much already said where they stand on this. But nonetheless, it still has one more phase after this, but it's still a very exciting step.
So I think that it is very possible that in the very near future here, Californians could be seeing a little bit of freedom returned to their state. So again, while I'm just thinking about this in broad terms, I personally am excited. You know, I've been doing this now on YouTube for over 10 years, and everything is changing, everything is different. We just saw that California was able to pass and do everything they wanted, and it didn't matter what type of lawsuit you had to go against it; the Ninth Circuit just always threw things over. So it's exciting to see, after all of these years and more than a decade of doing this on YouTube, that we actually have a chance where the Ninth Circuit might have to side with the Second Amendment, which would be fantastic.
So again, we're seeing some documents, we're seeing some movement. We have several entries in both Duncan and Miller now that have been entered in August. And so we're going to be watching these very closely. And if Benitez does his thing, then more than likely we're going to see it kind of late on a Friday; that's typically, to my knowledge, what he's done in the past. So again, we'll stay on top of this one. I'll let you guys know if there are any changes. But again, it's very exciting times in California. I think that the good old Governor there is going to have his head turning a little bit because everything that he worked for for the past 10 years is going to be overturned fairly soon, and that's my prediction. Thank you all very much for watching; I really do appreciate it. Please like, subscribe, and you guys have a great day.
New Release - 2-Point QD Rifle Slings
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"
Copper Jacket TV - California Votes To Gut Rights For Entire Country
The California legislature has decided to take up and vote on the proposed 28th Amendment. This amendment would gut and reverse other amendments. California would be the first state to vote on this amendment.
-- USCCA - https://www.uscca.com/copperjacket Social Media INSTAGRAM - https://www.instagram.com/thedailysho... Check out my Merch, Shirts, Mugs and More! https://teespring.com/dashboard/stores NOTICE: I am "NOT" a lawyer, and this should not be considered legal advice. These are my opinions. (DISCLAIMER: This post may contain paid advertisements or affiliate links. What is an affiliate link? It means that if you click on one of the product links, Copper Jacket TV will receive a small commission at no extra cost to you. This helps support the channel and allows awesome future content. Thank you for the support!DO NOT try anything you see in this video at home. All work should be performed by a trained professional. Disclaimer: These videos are strictly for educational and entertainment purposes only. Imitation or the use of anything demonstrated in my videos is done AT YOUR OWN RISK.. These videos are free to watch and if anyone attempts to charge for this video notify us immediately.
Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. On this channel, I not only like to bring you guys breaking Second Amendment news, but I also like to give commentary and point out the lies and hypocrisy of those who are trying to take your rights away. Just like we have in the state of California today, where the California legislature has decided that they are going to take up the 28th Amendment and try to spread it across the country. Because it's not bad enough that they destroyed the Second Amendment in their state, they want to bring it to your state as well.
So, let's go ahead and talk about what's going on and if Gavin actually thinks that this is something that will work. Workers are formally backing the governor's call for a constitutional amendment to curb gun violence. Governor Newsom first proposed the addition of a 28th Amendment to the U.S Constitution back in June.
Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here. If you just happen to be one of those few people who have not heard of this new proposed 28th Amendment yet, let me go ahead and fill you in on some facts. This is an amendment proposed by the governor of California in order to circumvent the Second Amendment. They want what's happening in California to happen across the country, but the Second Amendment is in their way. So, their plan is to put their gun control into the Constitution, giving them the authority to enact whatever they want nationally. This would essentially gut and overturn the Second Amendment, restricting age and access to firearms.
California politicians love this idea, and they are taking it up. They want to be the first in the country to vote on this new constitutional amendment. To get the new amendment passed, two-thirds of state legislatures need to vote in favor. While it's part of the process, it's unlikely to happen since more than half the country recognizes constitutional carry. These states won't likely vote for this amendment.
Governor Newsom believes this amendment can work, but even if California's resolution passes, they need 33 other states to do the same for a convention to formally discuss it. To date, no state has successfully amended the Constitution. Changes have happened in the past, but nothing as unpopular as disarming citizens.
This move by California to impose its authority over the rest of the country is concerning. While this particular effort may not succeed, it's essential to pay attention and educate people about such attempts. As things change over time, we need to be vigilant to protect our rights from potential future challenges.
Thank you all very much for watching. Please like, subscribe, and have a great day.
Copper Jacket TV - This "Red State" is About To See "California Style" Gun Control
DO NOT try anything you see in this video at home. All work should be performed by a trained professional. Disclaimer: These videos are strictly for educational and entertainment purposes only. Imitation or the use of anything demonstrated in my videos is done AT YOUR OWN RISK.. These videos are free to watch and if anyone attempts to charge for this video notify us immediately.
Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. So if there's one thing that none of us who believe in the Constitution would like to see, it's California-style gun control move into red states. We've seen it in blue states plenty of times; they pretty much use the California blueprint to make everything in their state happen. But in red states, that stuff tends to stay away a little bit. Well, guess what? Gavin Newsom's planned a road trip, and he's going to be taking his entire gun control agenda with him. And you're not going to believe what state he's going to be visiting to push his agenda. Let's talk about it now.
Real quick, I just want to say thank you all very much for watching. If you're watching this video and you're not subscribed yet, hit that subscribe button. We do videos pretty much every day during the week. Hit that little bell notification; that'll let you know when the new videos come out. It's free, it only takes a second, but it helps me out quite a bit. And check out the main sponsor of this channel down below, which is the USCCA. With their membership, you get that self-defense liability insurance, which is absolutely priceless.
Now, there's one state out there that's pretty conservative at this moment. However, recent events have sort of changed the governor's mind in a few instances, and now we see some new gun control policies that might be presented fairly soon. Get this, Gavin Newsom is heading to Nashville, Tennessee. He's heading there for what they call a three-star dinner. And during that dinner, he's going to outline the plan for Democrats to take over in that state in order to push his gun control agenda. So let me just go ahead and read you guys a quick clip from the little ad that he has, talking about heading over there. It says, "We are excited to announce that California governor Gavin Newsom, which is their Golden Boy, will deliver the keynote speech at the Tennessee Democratic Party's annual three-star dinner. The theme of this year's dinner is 'Lift Your Voice.' We will recognize and honor the Tennessee three state representatives, Gloria Johnson, Justin Pearson, and Justin Jones. This year's dinner will be filled with excitement. Tennessee was thrust into the national spotlight this year, and we are using this opportunity to build momentum ahead of the 2024 cycle. Governor Newsom has been deliberate about what good governance should include. His presence will be a breath of fresh air for Democrats in our state."
So you're telling me these people in Tennessee think that's a breath of fresh air? I'm starting to wonder if they've never visited California before or any of the major cities, because that's not the type of breath of fresh air that you want to bring back to Nashville. If you do, I think that might be a bigger problem altogether. Regardless, he's going to have the stage, and while he's on stage, one of the things I'm pretty sure he's going to mention is going to be his new 28th Amendment. The 28th Amendment, which essentially abolishes the Second Amendment. It's going through the California legislature right now. California is looking to support him on this, and if he wants to actually get it done, he's going to need the support of other states. So more than likely, that's going to be something that he's going to bring up. Let's just abolish it altogether and replace it with a 28th Amendment, which takes something from a right to a privilege and tells you what the government's not allowed to impose on you and changes that instead to what the government is imposing on you. That's one of the things he's also going to tell them: how to get through all this stuff, right? He was able to do it in his state, which is a little bit easier because he has a lot more support, but he was still able to get it through in his state. And he's going to tell these people, "When you go back to your respective chambers, this is what you're trying to accomplish."
And so, while they go back, you're going to see a lot of probably California-style gun control be introduced in Tennessee in the upcoming future. Because again, as the keynote speaker, he's going to have the stage, he's going to have the time, and they're looking at him as if to say, "Tell us what to do, Almighty master." So that's what's going to happen on the 26th in Nashville, Tennessee. So if any of this gets brought up and any of it gets adopted, this is going to be that slippery slope that everybody talks about. Because it always starts with just one thing, okay? So maybe it's something that the governor believes is, you know, so-called common sense, and then, you know, we're just going to give them that, and that should appease everybody. But guess what? They're always going to want more. Okay, the people who want to abolish it will always want more. And so while you give them that little bit, they're going to tug on that nugget and say, "Hey, you did this, what about just one more piece of common sense this?" And then maybe the governor gives up that, and the next thing you know, it's this downhill trend that could have all been stopped. If, in the very beginning, he said, "No, we're not going to do that to our residents, we have a constitutional right, and I'm not going to infringe on that." Boom, end of story, it's done. It doesn't get started. Once you let it get started, that's when the ball starts rolling down the hill and ends up being something negative because they will always want more. They will always want to take more, and it's just never enough until it's gone. And that's just a fact. We've seen that in multiple states like Washington and Oregon and California and Hawaii and New Jersey and New York, I mean, just to name a few right there. So again, just the fact that he's got a trip there and he's going to be talking about his agenda to the people who are people who make law in that state is something that I think everybody needs to just be aware of. Because I think that it could signal some change in Tennessee, and that would absolutely suck for a lack of a better descriptive term there. Anyway, I wanted to let you guys know about that, and I want to thank you all very much for watching. If you haven't done so already, please hit that subscribe button. You guys have a great day.
Copper Jacket TV - Huge 9th Circuit Victory, Overturning California "Assault Weapon" Ban
There was a major win in the 9th circuit that has huge implications in cases currently before District Court Judges in the state like "Miller", Duncan and Rhode to name a few. The victory came with a decision in Teter v. Lopez.
Check out BattleCat Co. here - https://tinyurl.com/m4ddcsd3-- USCCA - https://www.uscca.com/copperjacket
Social Media
INSTAGRAM - https://www.instagram.com/thedailysho...
Check out my Merch, Shirts, Mugs and More!
https://teespring.com/dashboard/stores
NOTICE: I am "NOT" a lawyer, and this should not be considered legal advice. These are my opinions.
(DISCLAIMER: This post may contain paid advertisements or affiliate links. What is an affiliate link? It means that if you click on one of the product links, Copper Jacket TV will receive a small commission at no extra cost to you. This helps support the channel and allows awesome future content. Thank you for the support!
DO NOT try anything you see in this video at home. All work should be performed by a trained professional. Disclaimer: These videos are strictly for educational and entertainment purposes only. Imitation or the use of anything demonstrated in my videos is done AT YOUR OWN RISK.. These videos are free to watch and if anyone attempts to charge for this video notify us immediately.
Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. So today, I've got something that's just going to blow your mind. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals actually voted in favor of the Second Amendment. I can't remember in my lifetime when that has ever happened, so this is a pretty big deal. Not only that, they followed the structure created under Bruin and used text, history, and tradition to get there. So, we're going to talk about this and its massive effect on California's assault weapons ban, their mag bans, and just about everything else they've been implementing in that state. This is extremely exciting. Let's get into it.
This video is proud to be sponsored by the one and only apparel company that you need to visit today: Battle CAT Company. Battlecat company actually has a big selection of t-shirt designs in multiple colors. They also have hoodies, hats, accessories, stickers, and even a podcast. So, Battle Cat Co. has all your apparel needs covered, including the shirt I'm wearing here today. Check out the link down below to Battle Cat, and thanks once again for sponsoring today's video.
Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here because this is very exciting. As I'm sure most of you know, we have some pretty big Second Amendment cases currently sitting before district court judges in the state of California. These cases challenge pretty much every piece of gun control that California has put out over the past several decades - like 10-day waiting periods, the roster, background checks, mag bans, so-called assault weapons bans; you name it, it's being challenged. And it looks like we have a very good chance of winning these cases, and it could have a ripple effect across the entire country.
But the big question has been, is the Ninth Circuit going to use the direction that was given to them by the Supreme Court in Bruin? Are they going to apply that to Second Amendment cases moving forward? Because the Ninth Circuit always sides with the state. I mean, in my lifetime, I don't think up until now I've seen the Ninth Circuit ever side in favor of the Second Amendment over the state. So, that's how big this is. And that big question has been answered basically here.
So what we have is a case called Teter V Lopez, which is a case out of Hawaii, covered by the Ninth Circuit. And that case has to do with butterfly knives - something very simple, right? Well, it turns out that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals actually did use Bruin in making their decision. So, the Ninth Circuit used text, history, and tradition when they came up with their order. Now, that's a big deal because we were wondering since it does look like we are going to win these cases, how is the Ninth Circuit going to view things post-Bruin? Well, it looks like they're viewing them under the light of Bruin and that text, history, and tradition standard. So, this is kind of like a leak, right? We're gaining insight into how the Ninth Circuit is going to be looking at Second Amendment cases, all because of a butterfly knife case out of Hawaii, again Teter V Lopez.
Let me go ahead and read you something real quick, just a quick summary of the case. And that'll give you some idea as to how things worked out here and why this is going to be so big. Because, again, we are waiting on Judge Benitez for Duncan and Miller, two of the biggest cases in that state. And we've been wondering why he's waiting so long. He's had these cases since March 15th. Well, he might have been waiting for this, and we might be seeing a decision now from Benitez in those two cases. So this, again, could crack everything wide open, and we could be seeing some major changes coming to the state of California very soon.
So, again, let me read you this quick summary because it's definitely something you're going to want to see. Okay, here's a quick summary of what happened. It says here, "Reversing the district court's summary judgment in favor of Hawaii officials and remanding, the panel held that Hawaii's ban on butterfly knives violates the Second Amendment as incorporated against Hawaii through the 14th Amendment. The panel determined that the plaintiffs had standing to challenge because they allege the Second Amendment provides them with a legally protected interest to purchase butterfly knives. And but for Section 134-53 subsection (a), they would do so within Hawaii. Plaintiffs further articulated a concrete plan to violate the law, and Hawaii's history of prosecution under its butterfly ban was good evidence of credible threat of enforcement."
"The panel denied Hawaii's requests to remand this case for further factual or historical development in light of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruin, determining that further development of adjudicative facts was unnecessary. The panel held that the possession of butterfly knives is conduct covered by the plain text of the Second Amendment. Bladed weapons facially constitute arms within the meaning of the Second Amendment, and contemporaneous sources confirmed that at the time of the adoption of the Second Amendment, the term 'arms' was understood as generally extending to bladed weapons and, by necessity, butterfly knives."
"The Constitution therefore presumptively guarantees keeping and bearing such instruments for self-defense. The panel held that Hawaii failed to prove that Section 134-53(a) was consistent with the nation's historical traditions of regulating weapons. The majority of the historical statutes cited by Hawaii did not ban the possession of knives but rather regulated how they were carried and concerned knives that were distinct from butterfly knives, which are more analogous to ordinary pocket knives. Hawaii cited no analogs in which Congress or any state legislature imposed an outright ban on the possession of pocket knives, closest in time to the Second Amendment's adoption in 1791 and the 14th Amendment's adoption in 1868."
Now, let me explain to you why what I just read to you is so important. Because in the past, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals always liked to use the two-step approach, right? Where they balance the state's interest over the law that infringed on your rights. And if the state had a good interest in, let's say, public safety, which was always what they used, then the courts would simply uphold the law for the state of California, even though it was still an infringement. They kind of balanced everything, right? Well, the Supreme Court said you can't balance anything anymore. You have to look at it from a textual standpoint. You know, from the text of the Second Amendment itself, does it violate the Second Amendment? And then you have to look at text, history, and tradition to see if there's some type of historical analog, some type of similar law that existed back in the day that allows you to have this law still today, right? The law couldn't have just been created and then overturned. It has to be a law that has stood the test of time from the creation of the Second Amendment in 1791, the ratification all the way to the Reconstruction Era in 1868. Right? So, the 14th Amendment. That's part of why this plays in. Regardless, the court didn't do that this time. They looked at it from a pure textual and historical standpoint, which is extremely odd for the Ninth Circuit. You do not see that. You always see the two-step approach from the Ninth Circuit and not the Bruin test, which is text, history, and tradition. But that's what they used here in determining this. That means that when Miller and Duncan and all of these other cases go up there, they're actually going to have this to use as some type of analog for themselves to say that these laws shouldn't be allowed to stand either. And so what we have here is almost like a preview of an analysis from the court. So, it looks like the court actually is using Bruin, and if they continue to use Bruin, we'll definitely cite in our favor. And Hawaii got smacked down by that three-judge panel who said, "Look, you can't do this. You didn't provide enough historical analogs." As a matter of fact, in that summary, it even states that the state itself asked for more time for discovery. So the state could go back and the state could look for some type of better historical analog to try and, you know, hold up their claims. But the Ninth Circuit actually said, "No, we're not going to allow you that time to go back and look in history because it doesn't really matter if there is any historical tradition." And why is that? Because it already violates the plain text of the Second Amendment. So that was in that summary. If you guys want to go back and listen to it, you can hear where they say it violated the plain text of the Second Amendment. There's no need to go any further into discovery because once it violates the text, that's the end of the test right there. That's it. It violates it. It's gone. And so you have to go back to 1791 and take a look at what arms were defined as back then, which were defined as anything that was bearable in your own defense or something that could be worn for your own defense. And there were several different definitions, but they're all somewhere around there.
So again, this is a very big deal. We have very big cases that are going to be up to the Ninth Circuit, I think, extremely soon here. And now we finally have a glimpse into the way that they're going to be running the show moving forward. So fingers crossed on this one. I'm extremely hopeful that the people of California might actually be seeing some freedom and some liberty in that state again very soon. So I wanted to share that with you, 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.
Copper Jacket TV - California Sheriff Calls Out Newsom, You Need To See This
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.
This is the first time in the memory of all of the sheriffs in this state. So the sheriffs, there's only 58 of us in the state, and we come together for meetings every three months. The current governor, we're talking five years now, he's never met with us once. Every governor before him met with us every two months. This Governor refuses; he has never met with us ever. He has no desire to. They're making all of these public safety laws and changing laws that are on the books that concern Public Safety, closing down prisons, letting people out early. He has never consulted with the public safety experts, the ones that deal with it every single day. Never. I mean it makes absolutely no sense. You've tried to reach out to him absolutely, there's no clear reason why he doesn't. He's busy, that's the answer. Every governor in our history hasn't been that busy but apparently he's too busy.
So let me see if I got this straight. What he's saying is that all previous Governors met with sheriffs on a regular basis. As a matter of fact, the last one was meeting with sheriffs about every two months, probably to talk about public safety and things that could be changed and how to keep the public safe and so forth. But this particular Governor, the governor that likes to pass as many laws as possible, hasn't met with the sheriffs once. He's not new to the job, as a matter of fact, this is his second term, so he's been doing this for quite a while now and hasn't met with the 58 sheriffs. The counties in California are massive. I mean we're talking about populations in the tens of millions in one County alone. So again, we're talking about huge populations, these are very big decisions, and he has time to legislate people's rights away and you know legislate what he thinks is best for Public Safety, but without the input of all of those local sheriffs, it's unbelievable.
Now, the sheriff that was making those comments right there is the sheriff of Riverside County, and from what I'm gathering from people's comments, he's a pretty good Sheriff. As a matter of fact, if I remember right, Riverside County was a pretty conservative County if you compare it to other counties like LA county and Santa Clara and places like that, so Riverside is a little bit more conservative. But it was nice to see him call those things out, to call out the hypocrisy of passing all of these safety laws and all of these Second Amendment restrictions and things like that while at the same time not talking to the people that are on the ground. So if you're somebody out there who's watching this who's just wanted that little extra bit of evidence that he absolutely does not really care about Public Safety, what he really cares about is politics and agenda, there's your proof, that's all the proof you need right there.
So I wanted to share that with you guys. I know this is just kind of a short video, but I felt like that video really speaks for itself when you watch it. It's eye-opening, and to be honest with you, I didn't even know that. I found that to be pretty shocking. I assumed, I just assumed that he had met with sheriffs at some point, but to hear that through his entire time he's been in office he hasn't met with them once was shocking even to me. So again, I wanted to share that with you, and I want to thank you all very much for watching. I really do appreciate it. If you're not subscribed yet, hit that subscribe button, that little bell notification to let you know when videos come out and check out the comment section. I'm thinking this might be a good one. Thanks again, have a good one.
Copper Jacket TV - California Replaces 2nd Amendment With This and Its Absurd
I've seen a lot of pure ridiculousness come out of California in my time but this might just take the cake. California has some of the toughest gun laws in the country and now they would like you to use something absurd to defend yourself.
-- USCCA -
https://www.uscca.com/copperjacket
Social Media
INSTAGRAM -
https://www.instagram.com/thedailysho...
Check out my Merch, Shirts, Mugs and More!
https://teespring.com/dashboard/stores
NOTICE: I am "NOT" a lawyer, and this should not be considered legal advice. These are my opinions.
(DISCLAIMER: This post may contain paid advertisements or affiliate links. What is an affiliate link? It means that if you click on one of the product links, Copper Jacket TV will receive a small commission at no extra cost to you. This helps support the channel and allows awesome future content. Thank you for the support!
DO NOT try anything you see in this video at home. All work should be performed by a trained professional. Disclaimer: These videos are strictly for educational and entertainment purposes only. Imitation or the use of anything demonstrated in my videos is done AT YOUR OWN RISK.. These videos are free to watch and if anyone attempts to charge for this video notify us immediately.
Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV.
So, I don't think we should call California California anymore. I think we should call it clown world. Because until actual rational adults take charge in that state, that's pretty much all it is. It's just a clown world. Now, I'm not talking about you guys that are watching this video that actually believe in the Constitution, separation of powers, and our basic rights. I'm talking about the people that are in power in California right now.
Because you will not believe what they're saying that you should do to defend yourself. Don't get a firearm; all you need is this. Let's go ahead and talk about what they're suggesting.
Now, real quick, I just want to thank you all very much for watching. If you're not subscribed yet, consider hitting that subscribe button. We have Second Amendment content on a daily basis, news, and reviews. I've got a lot of great stuff coming up. If you are not seeing my videos all the time, hit that little bell notification and leave a comment. Let me know what's going on. With that being said, let's go ahead and get to the video.
Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here. As I'm sure most of you know, crime in certain California cities has grown exponentially to the point where it's just not safe to live there anymore. People can't even leave their houses. They go to work, they come back, they stay in their homes for the rest of the day. A lot of people are packing up and moving to other states or they're moving to the suburbs or they're moving further east in California, places where they feel a little bit more safe. Because California will limit the way that you can protect yourself. So, in a lot of these big cities like San Francisco, Oakland, and Los Angeles, where you might feel the most at risk, that's where the strongest gun control is, stronger than any other gun control in the entire country. That's where you're going to find it. So, people are pretty much disarmed now.
While that might sound scary, there's really nothing to worry about because Oakland has a solution. Oakland is now advising their residents – and again, this is instead of carrying arms – they are advising their residents to carry and use air horns. Air horns. So instead of defending yourself with something that's actually effective, they would like you to get a can that has a horn on it so that you can alert other people that you are being assaulted. "Hey, I have a guy here with a knife," or "I have somebody here that looks to do me some type of bodily harm. I'm going to blow my horn to let other people know about it." Now, they're saying that you should do this so that other people who know about it can then call law enforcement or intervene in some way. But in reality, all you're doing is saying, "Over here, guess what's happening to me?" That's pretty much it. And that is Oakland's solution to the crime problem.
Now, while people like you and I might think that something like that is completely ridiculous, there are people who voted for the people that are in power there that actually think it's a pretty good idea. As a matter of fact, CNN gave an interview to somebody who said, "You know what? As a matter of fact, I have three air horns stationed around my house. Three air horns. So it doesn't matter where somebody tries to come in, I've got an air horn pretty much covering all of my entrances." And so, that's the idea that they decided to run with. So again, while you and I see that that's pretty much just a non-starter to begin with, there are people out there that think, "Hey, this isn't actually a half-bad idea."
Now, if it sounds like I'm being cynical or sarcastic, it's because I absolutely am. I am sick of the ridiculousness that comes from California politicians. These people, on one hand, they restrict your Second Amendment rights and they infringe on it on a daily basis until you're pretty much disarmed. And then the advice that they give you afterwards is to use a freaking horn to defend yourself or to let other people know what's going on. I mean, in reality, what good is that going to do? And you're giving people a false sense of security on top of that. So people who follow your advice because they feel that you're the one who has the best advice because you're the one that's in charge, and so they go and they get themselves a bunch of air horns, are living under this false sense of security that they have this horn and it's going to do something when in reality it's not going to do anything.
Now, the only thing that I heard from California politicians in Oakland is that they also say that you should put bars on your doors and windows. Now, while that part sucks, at least it would probably keep intruders out or keep them from banging down your door. So putting bars and stuff up, while obviously nobody wants that, that's a solution that could actually work. You know, that way when you open your door, there's still bars in front of you. Nobody's going to come barging in as long as you keep that outer door locked. But with an air horn, give me a break. What are you going to do with an air horn? It better be very heavy or very long air horn that you can use to defend yourself; otherwise, it's just a can of noise that everybody is going to ignore.
Now, there's a myriad of lawsuits right now in the state of California working to restore your Second Amendment rights. These are lawsuits that challenge pretty much every one of California's laws that restrict your ability to defend yourself, and hopefully, we'll see some wins in these lawsuits very soon. But in the meantime, people shouldn't live under that false sense of hope that a can of air is somehow going to help you out. Yeah, it might alert other people, but those other people really have no obligation to help you, and it doesn't mean that they will. All you're doing is bringing attention to yourself, which in some ways is good under certain situations, but in most cases, it's just going to aggravate the opposite party, right?
So again, I think that is an absolutely terrible idea. Now, I just wanted to share that with you all real quick because honestly, when you read the headline, you're thinking to yourself, "No way this is actually real." And then you go ahead and you read the articles about it and you watch the interviews, and it is real. It is real. That's what they're telling you to do to defend yourself. I mean, people who are criminals, by definition, don't follow the law. And so to me, they're the only ones in California that have an advantage. And so, the playing field in California is not level, and until you level the playing field, it's just going to continue to get worse. People are going to continue with their mass exodus.
So again, I wanted to share that with you, and you guys can read the article and watch the videos for yourself. I'll go ahead and I'll link it down below. But again, it's something else. It's something else. Some California politicians are telling the good, law-abiding people, "Hey, use an air horn." Unbelievable. Thank you all very much for watching. I really do appreciate it. Please like, subscribe; you guys have a great day.
Copper Jacket TV - Overturning California Ammunition Background Checks Update Rhode v. Bonta
California is due to give their historical evidence to Judge Benitez in Rhode v. Bonta, previously Rhode v. Becerra. Judge Benitez who has most of the big cases in California currently before him didn't seem to believe the evidence exists but gave California 30 days to come up with something. The state now has exactly one week left in which time we could have some good news.
-- USCCA - https://www.uscca.com/copperjacketSocial Media
INSTAGRAM - https://www.instagram.com/thedailysho...
Check out my Merch, Shirts, Mugs and More!
https://teespring.com/dashboard/stores
NOTICE: I am "NOT" a lawyer, and this should not be considered legal advice. These are my opinions.
(DISCLAIMER: This post may contain paid advertisements or affiliate links. What is an affiliate link? It means that if you click on one of the product links, Copper Jacket TV will receive a small commission at no extra cost to you. This helps support the channel and allows awesome future content. Thank you for the support!
DO NOT try anything you see in this video at home. All work should be performed by a trained professional. Disclaimer: These videos are strictly for educational and entertainment purposes only. Imitation or the use of anything demonstrated in my videos is done AT YOUR OWN RISK.. These videos are free to watch and if anyone attempts to charge for this video notify us immediately.
Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV.
So today, I've got an update for you in Roadie v. Banta, previously Roadie v. Becerra. This is the case that challenges California's ammunition restrictions like background checks. Let's go and talk about what's going on.
Now, real quick, I just want to thank you all very much for watching. I really do appreciate it. If you haven't done so already, hit that subscribe button and that little bell notification to let you know when new videos come out. Leave a comment, that's where all the good conversation is happening. Also, check out the main sponsor of this channel, which is the USCCA. With your USCCA membership, you get things like self-defense liability insurance, which is absolutely priceless because most of us don't have enough money to hire or retain an attorney should we find ourselves in some type of self-defense situation. So, you definitely want to do that. Check out that link down below. Let's get to the video.
Okay, so let's go and talk about what's going on here. Now, if you follow my channel, you know that we talk about this one quite a bit because I feel like this one could have an impact across the country, win or lose. If we were to lose in this case, I think you're going to see a lot of other states start to implement something similar. If we win, however, it could overturn some other laws in other states or at least help, and it could also prevent other states from implementing something like this. And it's also just an absolute infringement on everybody's Second Amendment rights in that state.
Because what we have here with California's background check system is a completely wrecked system that gives a lot of false positives. That means when people go into a shop, they want to acquire some ammunition, they're not able to do so because for some reason the system kicks it back, saying that they are disqualified. And so, they have to walk out with nothing. And that basically means that all they're left with is a big heavy metal or plastic paperweight. So again, that completely infringes on people's Second Amendment rights.
You might remember that this case had a very big hearing back on July 17th, 2023, so just recently, less than a month ago, as a matter of fact. Now, during that hearing, Judge Benitez was talking to different council and California said, "You know what? We want an extra 30 days. We want 30 extra days to come up with some type of historical analog that we could present to you that shows you that our background checks on ammunition should be allowed to stand."
Now, Benitez, who's heard pretty much every case California has had to offer when it comes to the Second Amendment, he seemed like he was doubtful that they could come up with any more evidence, or at least any more evidence that he's already seen. There has to be some type of at least similar or mostly similar historical analog that can show that a law like this has been around since, you know, 1791 to the Reconstruction Era. And so, while Benitez was hesitant, he still gave them that 30 days. Now, that 30 days is just about up. As a matter of fact, we are exactly one week from that 30 days being up as of today.
Now, there's also something else that I want to talk to you guys about. So, this is a case by the CRPA. If you're not involved with the CRPA, please do so. Great organization. But the CRPA needs help because one of the problems that we're facing in this case is that the state is arguing that the CRPA doesn't have standing to bring this lawsuit forward because its members haven't suffered any of the effects that they are fighting against in the case. Meaning that, you know, there's no false positives or anything like that that they can prove. And that's absolutely, I mean, obviously there's tons of people who are affected by this in the state of California, and mostly are going to be CRPA members, regardless.
They need testimonials, they need information, and they need people to bring their experiences to them. So, I'm going to put a link down below to a page to the CRPA where you can go and if you've had a false positive or you've been denied for some reason that shouldn't be right, if something happened and you were forced to walk out with nothing, the CRPA wants to hear your story so that they can then present that to Benitez or, you know, to the court and show that yes, their members and people within California have experienced these things. If you're with the CRPA and you have an experience that you think would be helpful in this case, go over there and let them know what your experience is.
Now, Benitez has a pretty full plate. He's got Roadie, he's got Duncan, he's got Miller, and we've been waiting on Duncan and Miller since March 15th, and we still haven't heard anything about those. Now, I don't know if Roadie is going to be something that could be a little bit quicker than the other ones or whether or not he's going to wait for a decision in the other ones before he makes a decision in this one. I don't know exactly what the time frame is here, but it is still, even though a small possibility, a possibility that he could rule from the bench. So, we'll see what happens. He can provide an injunction, he could, there's several different things that he could do, but we just don't know exactly when he will do it.
So, after the evidence is given to him and he takes a look at the historical analogs and decides whether or not they're relevant to the case in any way, then he's going to go ahead and he'll probably go back and just kind of look things over and then decide how he's going to write his order. Because he knows, just like we all know, that it's going to get appealed and it's going to be appealed to the Ninth Circuit. And then, you know, that'll be a three-judge panel. Whether or not they want to appeal that to the full Circuit Court, who knows? But these things do take quite a bit of time.
But if he was to provide an injunction and then that appeal wasn't or that injunction wasn't stayed upon appeal from California, then we could see the background checks go away, actually fairly soon in this case. So, it just depends what Benitez decides to do. Regardless, this is one to pay attention to because, in my opinion, this completely strips people of their rights. It does, because again, they have to leave with nothing. And if you don't have anything to feed your tool, then you don't have anything at all. You can just throw it at somebody, that's pretty much all you're left with. So again, this does completely infringe on people's Second Amendment rights, and I think it needs to be stopped and overturned right now, immediately. So if you guys agree, hit that thumbs-up button, hit that little subscribe button if you have an extra second, and thank you all very much for watching.
Phase 5 Social Media
