California "Magazine Ban" Update, Duncan v. Bonta

Summary

In this Copper Jacket TV episode, the focus is on the Duncan v. Bon case, a significant legal challenge to California's ban on magazines holding over 10 rounds. The case, currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, was paused awaiting the Supreme Court's decision in another case, Rahimi. The host discusses the implications of a recent unfavorable ruling in a related case, Bian v. Brown, which could influence the Duncan outcome. The video also promotes the game 'Rage Shadow Legends,' offering viewers a special promotion and inviting them to join the host's clan.

Takeaways

• 📚 The video discusses the Duncan v. Bon case, which challenges California's ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds.
• 🏛️ The case is currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which had previously placed it on hold pending a Supreme Court decision in a related case.
• 🚫 The video shares disappointing news for those following the case, indicating a negative development in the legal fight against the magazine ban.
• 👥 The host encourages viewers to share the update with others interested in the magazine ban case and to engage in the discussion through comments and likes.
• 🎮 The video is sponsored by the game 'Rage Shadow Legends', which is described as a turn-based battle game with an immersive world and special promotions.
• 📈 The case has been significant for California, leading to 'Freedom Week' where residents could purchase firearms and magazines without the usual restrictions.
• 🤔 The video speculates on the impact of a poor decision in a related case (Bian v. Brown) on the Duncan v. Bon case, suggesting that the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals' ruling could be used to uphold the ban.
• 📜 The California Department of Justice has sent a letter to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, citing the Bian v. Brown decision as a reason to uphold California's ban.
• 💡 The plaintiffs' attorneys have rebutted the state's argument, pointing out that the Fourth Circuit's decision contradicts the Supreme Court's guidance in the Bruen case.
• ⏰ The host anticipates a decision in the Duncan v. Bon case soon and promises to update viewers, emphasizing the importance of the case for Californians' rights.

Q & A

What is the main topic of the video?

The main topic of the video is the Duncan v. Bon case, which challenges California's ban on magazines that can hold more than 10 rounds.

Why is the Duncan v. Bon case significant?

The case is significant because it challenges a state law restricting firearm accessories, and its outcome could impact gun rights in California.

What is the current status of the Duncan v. Bon case?

As of the video, the case is before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, and the decision is pending.

How does the outcome of the Bian V. Brown case relate to Duncan v. Bon?

The Bian V. Brown case, which upheld Maryland's ban on so-called assault weapons, is used by the California Department of Justice to argue that California's magazine ban should also be upheld, potentially influencing the Ninth Circuit's decision in Duncan v. Bon.

What was the impact of the Bian V. Brown decision on the Second Amendment?

The Bian V. Brown decision suggests that firearms not considered good for personal self-defense may not be protected by the Second Amendment, which could have broader implications for gun rights cases.

What is the 'Freedom Week' mentioned in the video?

Freedom Week was a period in California when, due to a court decision, people could purchase firearms and accessories without restrictions, including magazines with capacities over 10 rounds.

Why did the California Department of Justice write to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals?

The California Department of Justice wrote to the court to highlight the Bian V. Brown decision as a reason to uphold California's ban on large-capacity magazines.

What is the concern about the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' potential decision in Duncan v. Bon?

The concern is that the court may use the Bian V. Brown decision as a precedent to uphold California's ban, despite the potential issues with the Fourth Circuit's ruling in that case.

What is the role of the Supreme Court's Bruen decision in this context?

The Bruen decision set a framework for evaluating Second Amendment rights, and the video discusses how lower courts, like the Fourth Circuit, may be misinterpreting or not following this framework.

What does the plaintiff's rebuttal to the California Department of Justice's letter argue?

The plaintiff's rebuttal argues that the Bian V. Brown decision is flawed and should not be used to uphold California's ban, as it misapplies the Supreme Court's directives from Bruen.

Outlines

00:00

📚 Duncan vbon Case Discussion

The video discusses the Duncan vbon case, a significant legal challenge to California's ban on gun magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds. The case is currently under review by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. The host explains that the case was previously on hold pending the Supreme Court's decision in another case, rahimi, but now the decision has been made, leading to renewed interest in the outcome of Duncan vbon. The host also mentions that the case is important because it could affect the rights of Californians to choose their firearms and accessories.

05:01

📜 Impact of Bian V. Brown on Duncan vbon

The video delves into the implications of the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in Bian V. Brown, which upheld Maryland's ban on so-called assault weapons. The host expresses concern that this decision could negatively influence the outcome of the Duncan vbon case. The California Department of Justice has submitted a letter to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, drawing parallels between the two cases and arguing that California's ban should be upheld based on the Bian V. Brown ruling. The host reads from the letter, which argues that the firearms in question are not within the scope of the Second Amendment right to bear arms for self-defense and that even if they were, the ban would still be constitutional due to a strong tradition of regulating dangerous weapons. The host also mentions a rebuttal from the plaintiff's attorneys, which criticizes the Bian V. Brown decision and argues that it contradicts the Supreme Court's guidance in Bruen.

10:02

🔍 Anticipating a Decision in Duncan vbon

In the final paragraph, the host anticipates that a decision in the Duncan vbon case will be forthcoming soon and expresses a desire for Californians to have the freedom to choose their firearms without restrictions. The host encourages viewers to subscribe for updates and reiterates the importance of the case for the rights of California gun owners. The video concludes with a call to action for viewers to stay informed about the case's developments and to support the plaintiffs' efforts to challenge the magazine ban.

Keywords

💡Duncan vbon

Duncan vbon is a legal case of significant importance that is currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. It challenges California's ban on magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds of ammunition. The case is central to the video's theme as it discusses the implications of this legal challenge on gun rights and the potential for overturning the ban, which was previously deemed unconstitutional by a federal district court judge.

💡Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals is a federal court that handles appeals from lower courts within its jurisdiction, which includes California. In the context of the video, this court is crucial as it is where the Duncan vbon case is pending a decision. The outcome of this case could have far-reaching effects on gun regulations in California and set a legal precedent for other jurisdictions.

💡Magazine ban

The term 'magazine ban' refers to the prohibition of firearm magazines that can hold more than a certain number of rounds, in this case, more than 10 rounds. This is a key issue in the Duncan vbon case, as the ban is being challenged on constitutional grounds. The video discusses the implications of this ban and the potential for it to be overturned, which would be a significant victory for those opposing such restrictions.

💡Rahimi

Rahimi is a case mentioned in the video that was pending before the Supreme Court and had an impact on the Duncan vbon case. The decision in Rahimi could have influenced how the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals approaches the Duncan vbon case, as it deals with similar constitutional issues related to gun rights. The video suggests that the outcome of Rahimi was anticipated to provide guidance for the Duncan case.

💡Second Amendment

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. In the video, the Second Amendment is central to the legal arguments being made in the Duncan vbon case, as the plaintiffs argue that the magazine ban infringes upon this constitutional right. The video discusses how lower courts have interpreted the Second Amendment in relation to gun control measures.

💡Plaintiff

A plaintiff is a person who brings a case against another in a court of law. In the context of the video, the plaintiffs in the Duncan vbon case are challenging the constitutionality of California's magazine ban. The video discusses the arguments presented by the plaintiffs and their efforts to overturn the ban as a violation of the Second Amendment.

💡California Department of Justice

The California Department of Justice is the state agency responsible for enforcing state laws and representing the state in legal matters. In the video, the department is mentioned as it has taken an interest in the Duncan vbon case and has communicated with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals regarding the case. The department's involvement indicates the state's commitment to defending the magazine ban.

💡Bian V Brown

Bian V Brown is another legal case mentioned in the video, which challenged Maryland's ban on so-called 'assault weapons.' The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the ban, arguing that the weapons were not suitable for personal self-defense and thus not protected by the Second Amendment. The video discusses how this decision could influence the Ninth Circuit's ruling on the Duncan vbon case, as it sets a precedent for upholding gun control measures.

💡Public safety

Public safety refers to the protection of the health, welfare, and security of the public. In the video, the concept of public safety is used by the California Department of Justice to argue in favor of the magazine ban, suggesting that it is necessary to prevent excessive harm to society. The video critiques this argument, suggesting that it is a misuse of the interest-balancing approach and is not consistent with Supreme Court directives.

💡Rage Shadow Legends

Rage Shadow Legends is a mobile game mentioned in the video as a sponsor. It is a turn-based battle game where players can collect and upgrade characters to battle against AI or other players. The game is used as a promotional element in the video, offering viewers a special promotion and encouraging them to join the host's clan within the game. This serves as a commercial break and a way to support the video content.

Highlights

Introduction to the Duncan v. Bon case, a significant legal challenge to California's ban on magazines holding more than 10 rounds.

Case is currently before the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, following a hold pending the Supreme Court's decision in another case, Rahimi.

Discussion on the implications of the recent Supreme Court decision on the Duncan case.

Mention of the impact of the Duncan case on California's 'Freedom Week', a period allowing unrestricted firearm purchases.

Judge Roger T. Benitez's role in declaring California's ban unconstitutional and the subsequent 'Freedom Week'.

Personal anecdote from the host about living in California during 'Freedom Week'.

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals' decision in Bian v. Brown, which upheld Maryland's assault weapons ban.

Critique of the Fourth Circuit's reasoning in Bian v. Brown, which is seen as contradicting the Second Amendment.

California Department of Justice's letter to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, citing Bian v. Brown to support California's ban.

Analysis of the California Department of Justice's argument that the ban on large-capacity magazines is constitutional.

Rebuttal from the plaintiff's attorneys challenging the Fourth Circuit's decision and its applicability to Duncan v. Bon.

Concerns that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals may use the Fourth Circuit's decision to uphold California's ban.

Discussion on the potential near-term decision in the Duncan case and its broader implications for gun rights in California.

Call to action for viewers to subscribe for updates on the Duncan case and other related legal developments.

Final thoughts on the importance of the right to choose firearms in California and the ongoing legal fight for this right.

Transcripts

hey everybody how's it going welcome

back to Copper Jacket TV so today we're

going to be talking about Duncan vbon

which is an extremely important case out

of the state of California that is

currently sitting before the ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals now this is an

extremely important case because Duncan

challenges California's ban on magazines

that can hold more than 10 rounds and

this is a case that has been bounced

around the court system for quite some

time now and if you watch this channel

you know that Duncan was placed on hold

at the ninth circuit pending the

decision in rahimi at the Supreme Court

and that decision has since come and

gone so I've been getting a lot of

questions about it well I've got some

news for you guys today and

unfortunately it's not good news so if

you know anybody that you know wants

updates on what's going on with the mag

band case uh definitely share it with

them you know thumbs ups are always

appreciated and leave a comment down

below and you know join the conversation

because we got to talk about what just

happened now before we get too deep into

it this video is brought to you by one

of the most fun and exciting games that

you will ever play raid sh Shadow

Legends so I've been playing rage Shadow

Legends for a while now so you guys can

scan the QR code or click the link in

the description box and join my clan and

we can fight together rage Shadow

Legends is a turn-based battle game that

allows you to play against AI or

hundreds of thousands of other real

people who play the game now R Shadow

Legends is a very immersive game it

really allows you to get lost in this

Epic World of Champions you can dig deep

into your Champion's ability gain XP and

battle through different scenes along

the the way now if you download the game

you can take part in the Asgard divide

event and take control of your favorite

Asgardian Champions now you also don't

want to miss out on this special

promotion if you use my custom link down

in the description box you will get

legendary Loki for free plus two epic

packs just by logging in for seven days

in the Asgard divide event you'll see

Champions like Thor F Hammer Odin FAA

Freya Fay Weaver and Loki the deceiver

there's also extra bonuses like receive

epic champion tagar and epic Champion

Grizzle jar after reaching level 15 now

before all the bonuses are gone make

sure you guys scan that QR code or you

check out the link in the description

box download Rage Shadow Legends and

start playing today you can join me my

characters copper Jacket TV or you can

join my clan copper jacket so again

check it out and get it today okay so

let's go and Dive Right In and talk

about what's going on with Duncan vbon

now if you guys have been following this

case you know that it's been going on

for a while now people in California

have been waiting for some relief as a

matter of fact this is the case that

resulted in California's Freedom week a

onewe period where people could pretty

much get whatever they want in whatever

capacity they wanted and that was thanks

to judge Roger T Bonz a federal district

court judge who actually found that

California's ban was unconstitutional

twice the first time is what gave him

Freedom week the second time is why we

are up at the n9th Circuit Court of

Appeals yet again waiting for their

decision now I just want to say

something real quick I lived in

California during Freedom week and I

don't know about you but it was awesome

and I really hope we can get back to

that point for the people of California

again because I pretty much emptied my

bank account I mean that almost put me

in the poor house but that's what it

should be like every single day people

in California should have the freedom to

choose what they want uh nonetheless

here we are okay so now let's go and

talk about the bad news regarding Duncan

so unfortunately the bad news is that

the fourth Circuit Court of Appeals came

out with an absolutely horrendous

miserable terrible decision in bian V

Brown bian is a case that challenged

Maryland's so-called assault weapons ban

and the four Circuit Court of Appeals

found that they are not even protected

by the Plain text of the Second

Amendment saying that they are not

considered arms because they're not good

for personal self-defense now you're

probably asking yourself why would the

bian decision uh have anything to do

with the Duncan decision which has to do

with two different things well they are

very closely associated if you can ban

the one and say that it's perfectly

constitutional to do so then obviously

you can ban what they consider to be uh

an accessory for it right and so guess

who noticed that right away well

obviously uh Bon noticed that right away

and the California Department of Justice

decided to get a hold of the ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals who is trust me

looking for an out looking for some way

to side with the state of Cal California

californ on this and said here is why

you should make sure that our ban is

upheld and it's because of bian V Brown

and the fourth circuit's absolutely

horrendous decision not only that the

fourth circuit even said that if if the

plane text even did cover it it would

still be constitutional and then they

used uh an approach that bruan said you

weren't allowed to use so it was it was

a terrible decision on so many accounts

but I have the letter here this is the

letter from the California Department of

Justice to the ninth Circuit Court of

appeals and I want to read it to you

real quick and you'll see what I'm

talking about okay so this is the letter

that was sent from the California

Department of Justice Rob Bon's office

to the ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

and it was just sent last month uh and

it is regarding Duncan at all vbon and

it says Dear Miss dwire who is the uh

Clerk of the Court uh appellant writes

to notify this court of the forth

circuits unbun decision in bian V Brown

the fourth circuit considered a second

amendment challenge to Maryland's law

Banning so-called quote unquote assault

weapons after rejecting plaintiff's

facial challenge because plaintiffs

failed to show that each firearm

regulated by Maryland's statute is

within the Ambit of the Second Amendment

the courts considered the

constitutionality of Maryland's

restrictions the court applied Bruin's

two-step methodology which they didn't

they just made it look that way and

concluded at the first step that the

covered Firearms are not within the

scope of the constitutional right to

keep and be arms for self-defense the

court further held that quote even if

the text of the Second Amendment were

read to Encompass the covered Firearms

the statutory Provisions would

nonetheless be constitutional end quote

because maryn's ban is consistent with a

strong tradition of regulating

excessively dangerous weapons once it

becomes clear that they are uh enacting

an inordinate toll on public safety and

social well-being that's that's your

interest balancing approach right there

uh Public Health and Social well-being

which is exactly what bruan said you

were not supposed to do but that's what

they did while nonetheless preserving

avenues for armed self-defense so

basically what they're saying there is

that by preserving other avenues meaning

that we're just Banning this we're not

Banning everything and you still have a

way to defend yourself uh we should be

able to uphold this ban which is exactly

what the Ford circuit did they upheld

the ban so now again you have bont here

sending this letter to the ninth circuit

and I guarantee you the nth circuit is

going to be looking at this for whatever

nugget they can use to make sure that

Duncan is upheld for the State of

California and not for the plaintiffs

now we do have a rebuttal here sent by

the plaintiff's attorneys to the ninth

Circuit Court of Appeals and the

rebuttal basically says the Attorney

General's short summary of bian V Brown

uh August 6th on Bon lays bare the

fundamental problems with that decision

as the Attorney General uh dutifully

recounts the forth circuit held that

states May ban any and all arms uh that

in legislators and judges view have an

inordinate toll on public safety and

social well-being uh provided the states

preserve avenues for armed self-defense

and that was a a quote so it says that

is just means and scrutiny by another

name so it's uh the interest balancing

approach by another name asking whether

conduct has had what judges perceive to

be inordinate effects on social

wellbeing is no different from asking

whether a state has what judges perceive

to be a strong enough interest in

restricting that conduct interest

balancing approach is exactly again what

the Supreme Court said you were not

allowed to do in these types of cases

and asking whether a law leaves what

judges perceive to be sufficient avenues

for arm self-defense is just another way

of asking whether a law burdens more

constitutionally protected conduct than

judges perceive to be necessary to serve

the state's interest none of that is

consistent with the Supreme Court's

directives Bruin was not an invitation

for lower courts to do everything just

the same as before now it goes on from

there but that was a really good

response to the absolute Ridiculousness

that is the decision by the for circuit

in bian V Brown now obviously the ninth

circuit who is uh almost always in favor

of whatever California decides to pass

is going to still try and find any

nugget in there that they can end up

using and so obviously California has

used the argument we uh we showed the

oral arguments here on this channel but

has used the argument that that's just

an accessory and it's not necessary and

you still have the means uh of of using

something else that is of smaller

capacity and so being able to ban

anything that's bigger than that should

be just fine that's kind of where the

the ninth circuit has gone this backs up

that ninth circuit uh claim right and so

really it just adds a little bit of

credibility to something that the ninth

circuit already believes and so maybe

they ignore uh the the lawyers for the

plaintiffs here and just go along with

what the fourth circuit said because

obviously it's an appell Court they hold

quite a bit of power uh in precedent so

they can go ahead and just look at that

and say hey we're going to say the same

thing and that's the end of it right

there and keep in mind that Miller which

is another challenge in California is

pending the decision in Duncan and so we

have a lot going on here but the fact

that the for circuit messed up so bad it

is absolutely hurting us in dun and

could cause a lot of problems again all

the ninth circuit needs is that one out

now this leads me to believe that we're

going to be seeing a decision in Duncan

fairly soon hopefully we do and you know

obviously I'll keep you guys updated on

that so if you haven't subscribed yet

consider hitting that subscribe button

it's free it only takes a second but it

really helps us out a lot uh thumbs ups

are always appreciated and again

anything happens I will jump right back

in front of the camera and let you guys

know about it but Californians need that

uh need what they got before but instead

of just one week they need it forever

because that's their right thank you all

very much have a good one