-- 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.

-- 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.

Social Media

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

Check out my Merch, Shirts, Mugs and More!

https://teespring.com/dashboard/stores

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

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

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

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV.

So today, I've got an update for you in 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.

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 listen, I am extremely frustrated today, and I want to start off this video by asking you a question. If you know the answer, please leave it down in the comment section. But why is it so difficult for us when challenging clearly unconstitutional gun control laws to get an injunction? I mean, it takes a lot. There's discovery, there's arguments. I mean, it could take forever to get that injunction. But when the government asks for a stay, the stay happens nearly immediately, and almost every single time. That's exactly what we have here now, where the Supreme Court has granted a stay against the frame and receiver injunctions.

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. This came down from the Supreme Court as a 5-4 decision. There were four dissenting judges who said that they would have left the Texas injunction in place. Those four judges were Kavanaugh, Alito, Gorsuch, and Thomas. That means that Barrett, who to me was kind of the swing here, ended up siding with the government and decided that the government should be allowed to enforce this unconstitutional rule until the appeals process is finished. So, this stay is going to remain in place through the appeal to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals down in New Orleans.

Now, we know that the Fifth Circuit has been friendly to the Constitution and friendly to the Second Amendment as of late. If you guys remember, they voted favorably with, you know, against the government's ban on bump stocks. So, the Fifth Circuit is going to be taking this up. But until then, a stay has been placed on that injunction which halted enforcement of the frame and receiver rule. And that means that now the government is going to be able to enforce it for the time being. So, the Fifth Circuit's going to have to hear this one.

Now, what I find the most stunning here is that anybody who's to look at this case, take both agendas out of it, just look at it from a factual standpoint. What we have here is a government agency who's trying to regulate something because of what it possibly could become in the future. Not because of what it is, because of something that might happen later that might really, in all actuality, might never happen. So, what they're trying to do is they're trying to overstep their boundary by regulating a piece of plastic or a piece of metal. Now, what they've done is they've given it a new definition, they've given it a new name, and they say that because of that new scary name, it should be regulated by the government. And so, they finagle their way into making a rule for it.

The fact that the Supreme Court, who's supposed to completely understand the separation of powers and the limits of powers in the Constitution, said that, you know what, that regulation should be allowed to stand and should be allowed to stand until appeal by the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, no, it shouldn't be allowed to stand. This is clearly a violation of multiple amendments within our Constitution and should not be allowed to stand even for one more minute. But for some reason, again like I said in the very beginning, the government always gets their stay. We have to go through everything to get these injunctions right.

We have to spend money and time and people are in court and they have to provide evidence and proof and there's all this research and history and stuff that has to be done. And then the court will come up with a decision. But when the government says, "Hey, we don't like that decision," they get their stay just like that. That's exactly what happened here over a piece of plastic and a piece of metal.

Now, because of the nature of this case and how it's accelerated through the different courts, I'm hoping that the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals will expedite this one and look at the facts in this case and come up with a decision as quickly as possible so that we can get back to the injunction. Because that's where I think we're headed, again. I think we're headed in the end to this being overturned. But at a minimum, we should be looking at an injunction from the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals or for the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to uphold the lower court's injunction, which would stop the enforcement of this absolutely ridiculous rule. But until that happens, it is now enforceable.

I mean, like it or not, unconstitutional or not, they love to enforce this stuff. Well, we see it every single time. We've talked about how many times doors have been knocked on and things have been taken and people have had to sign documents and all sorts of stuff. We've seen it happen time and time again over the last few years, and it's going to be no different. So, this is something that needs to stop. The government needs to stop being able to just simply walk in and overturn a court's decision on a whim, every single time. It needs, I've, as somebody who lived in California, I saw it every time we won. Every single time we won, the government would ask for an emergency stay. And sometimes things that took years to get to the injunction point would be stayed in a matter of 24 to 48 hours. So again, years to get to the injunction, but 48 hours for the government to overturn it. And that's kind of my point in this video. It is absolutely ridiculous. Anyway, I wanted to tell you guys about that. I want to thank you all very much for watching. I really do appreciate it. The fight continues. Please like, subscribe, and you guys have a great day."