Channel: @crpatv
This video from CRPA analyzes the Duncan v. Bonta legal decision in California, focusing on how the state is redefining the term 'dangerous' in relation to firearms. It argues that this redefinition conflicts with Supreme Court precedents like Heller and Bruen, potentially infringing on Second Amendment rights. The discussion highlights how the state is attempting to disregard the protection of commonly possessed arms and arms used for protected activities like marksmanship.
This video provides a comprehensive recap of the 2025 legislative year in California concerning firearm laws. It details significant anti-Second Amendment proposals, unexpected pro-2A developments, and the impact of grassroots advocacy, Capitol Days, and direct engagement with lawmakers. CRPA's Legislative Director, Rick Travis, breaks down how specific bills gained national controversy and highlights the importance of understanding legislative processes for future advocacy efforts. The session's key victories and defeats are analyzed, offering insights for Californians preparing for the 2026 session.
This video analyzes California's 'no split' argument against Supreme Court review of its magazine ban. The content refutes the claim by highlighting existing circuit splits on crucial Second Amendment sub-issues concerning what constitutes protected 'arms' (magazines, suppressors, bump stocks) and the required historical analogs for gun regulations. This creates the exact type of conflict the Supreme Court is meant to address, challenging California's legal maneuver.
This video discusses the potential impact of the Supreme Court's decision in the Duncan v. Bonta case on California's ban on commonly owned firearm magazines. The CRPA (California Rifle and Pistol Association) is pushing back against the ban, arguing that it infringes upon the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding citizens by forcing them to surrender lawfully acquired property. The case questions whether governments have the authority to ban widely owned arms and compel citizens to divest themselves of their possessions.
This video breaks down the key legal arguments in Sanchez v. Bonta, a Ninth Circuit case challenging California's ban on firearm suppressors. It discusses CRPA's involvement, the court's request for expert counsel, and the oral arguments, focusing on the state's 'not an arm' defense and the potential impact on Second Amendment rights post-Bruen. The analysis explores whether suppressors are protected under the Second Amendment and forecasts potential outcomes for 2026. It also touches on the broader landscape of Second Amendment litigation and shifts under the Trump DOJ.
This video discusses the nearing finalization of AB 2571, a California law, and the anticipation of a permanent injunction against it. The description highlights that following a panel reversal and mandates, the district court is pushing for a settlement. Parties involved are reportedly close to achieving a permanent injunction that would end the law's speech restrictions, allowing youth programs to plan with greater certainty. The hashtags indicate a focus on legal updates, Second Amendment rights, and California politics related to firearm legislation.
This video discusses a court order barring the state from enforcing California's AB 2571. The description suggests the law has been deemed unconstitutional, likely due to an injunction from the Ninth Circuit. The content focuses on the legal implications, potentially for firearm owners in California, highlighting the Second Amendment rights and ongoing political and legal battles surrounding gun control legislation. The video implies the law will remain on the books as a 'dead letter' unless repealed or replaced by the legislature or voters.
This video discusses a legal battle concerning California Assembly Bill 2571 (AB 2571), which imposed a ban on "junior marketing" of firearms. The California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA) and its partners sued, seeking a preliminary injunction. The state then introduced AB 160 to modify the law during the legal proceedings. Initially, a district judge denied the injunctions. However, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals reversed this decision, sending both cases back and restoring momentum for youth shooting programs and free speech rights.
This video discusses the immediate impact of California's AB 2571 legislation, which effectively halted youth shooting activities. The description highlights how ranges removed manufacturer banners and junior programs were frozen due to fear of substantial fines for 'advertising to minors.' This legislation is presented as a cultural crackdown that stopped safety and heritage programs, pending court intervention.
This video analyzes California's Assembly Bill 2571, focusing on its implications for the firearms industry. The bill, dubbed the "junior marketing" ban, targets entities like the CRPA, youth-focused firearm publications, and manufacturers. It prohibits advertisements for guns, ammunition, or accessories deemed "reasonably attractive to minors," citing aspects like bright colors, youth images, or mascots. The description argues that this vague standard could stifle lawful speech and youth safety education efforts.
This video analyzes the critical juncture of the Duncan v. Bonta case as it reaches the U.S. Supreme Court's conference. CRPA President Chuck Michel explains the significance of the conference, the factors Justices consider, and how Duncan compares to other Second Amendment petitions like Wolford and the marijuana-possession case. The discussion highlights the unprecedented activity on the Supreme Court's firearms docket in modern history and explores the need for clearer guidance following the Bruen decision, potential outcomes for Duncan, and judicial resistance in lower courts. It also encourages viewers to support CRPA.
This video discusses the potential Supreme Court case US v. Harris and its implications for the marijuana user gun ban. It highlights how a favorable ruling could lead to revisions of Form 4473, impacting Second Amendment rights nationwide, particularly in California. The CRPA's involvement through amicus briefs is noted, emphasizing the distinction between carrying while intoxicated and status-based bans.
