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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So guess what? There's going to be more record-keeping, there's going to be more names, more numbers, and more things that are going to be searchable pretty much anytime. So, while it's just a small definition change that's being made here to who is considered what, it has massive implications, and I wanted to let you guys know about that. So check out the rule, check out that link, check out the rule for yourself, read it for yourself, find the examples, and then go leave a comment and let them know what you think about it. Now just FYI, if you go off the rails in your comment, they're just going to trash it. So if you go off the rails and you just let them know what you really think, which is what we all really want to do, they're not going to disregard your comment altogether. Try and keep it civil to the point and let them know where you land on this, you know, but make sure that it's something that they're going to hang on to, that they can publish, that they can read. Anyway, I want to thank you all very much for watching. I really do appreciate it. Please like, subscribe, and you guys have a great day.

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

Hey everybody, how's it going? Welcome back to Copper Jacket TV. So we have a new development coming out of the state of California, and California is at it yet again, trying to impose their own version of gun control on the entire country. Even this reporter can see what's going on. These are laws that are already in place in California, but the idea is to make them nationwide. Yeah, even she knows what's going on.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2-POINT RIFLE SLINGS (QD CONNECT)

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

Heavy duty push button swivels "QD Connect"

*Please note color dye lots will differ.

Webbing Width: 1.5"

Shortest Overall Length: 33.5"

Longest Overall Length: 61"

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.