This YouTube video provides a breaking update on the Duncan v. Bonta case, which is currently before the Supreme Court and concerns a California magazine ban. The content emphasizes the importance of this legal development for firearm owners. It also includes promotional segments for "Attorneys on Retainer" and "American Hartford Gold," along with links to the creator's social media and merchandise. A clear disclaimer states that the creator is not a lawyer and the content is for informational and entertainment purposes only, not legal advice.
This video provides an update on the Duncan v. Bonta "Freedom Week" legal case concerning California's magazine ban. The description highlights that CRPA has successfully halted the enforcement of this ban and encourages viewers to donate to support their efforts. The video also includes promotional links for supplements, health services, apparel, and merchandise, along with the content creator's social media and mailing address.
This video discusses the major update in the Duncan v. Bonta California magazine ban case. Following a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that deemed the ban constitutional, Chuck Michel of the CRPA announced that the case will immediately proceed to the Supreme Court. The video also references a dissent from Judge VanDyke and promotes an 'Attorneys on Retainer' service with a discount code. A disclaimer clarifies that the content is for educational and entertainment purposes only and not legal advice.
This video discusses the Supreme Court's 8-1 decision impacting California's magazine ban case, Duncan v. Bonta. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals awaited this SCOTUS ruling before proceeding. Following the decision, both the plaintiffs and defendants submitted briefs, with the plaintiffs' arguments directly challenging some points previously raised by the 9th Circuit. The content also includes promotional material for American Hartford Gold, social media links, and merchandise. A disclaimer states the creator is not a lawyer and this is not legal advice, emphasizing educational and entertainment purposes only.
This video discusses the legal case Duncan v. Bonta, focusing on the oral arguments presented to the 9th Circuit. The case challenges California's ban on standard-capacity magazines (those holding more than 10 rounds). The content creator, who explicitly states they are not a lawyer and this is their opinion, expresses that the oral arguments were compelling after a long wait for news. The video also promotes the creator's social media and merchandise.
This video discusses the ongoing legal battle of Duncan v. Bonta, focusing on California's magazine ban. The case has progressed through various court levels, including Judge Roger Benitez, the 9th Circuit, and the Supreme Court, and is now back at the 9th Circuit. The description highlights that numerous states are submitting legal briefs, either supporting or opposing the ban. The content emphasizes that the creator is not a lawyer and offers personal opinions rather than legal advice. Disclaimers about imitation and paid advertisements are also included.
This video discusses a significant setback for a lawsuit challenging California's ban on "standard capacity" magazines, also known as LCMs (Large Capacity Magazines). The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued a ruling that negatively impacts the challenge to the ban. The case, "Duncan v. Bonta" (also referred to as "Duncan v. Becerra"), saw nearly two dozen states file a brief in support of California's ban, indicating a strong legal and political opposition to overturning the magazine restriction. The video also includes mentions of the USCCA and the content creator's social media and merchandise.
This video analyzes a recent 9th Circuit Court document concerning the Duncan v. Bonta case, explaining how it negatively impacts California's magazine ban. The content creator expresses concern that legal processes are being manipulated, making the existing ban even more restrictive. A disclaimer is provided that the speaker is not a lawyer and this is their personal opinion, not legal advice. The video also promotes USCCA, the creator's social media, and merchandise.
This video provides a major update on the Duncan v. Bonta legal case concerning California's magazine ban. Following a ruling by Judge Benitez that declared the ban unconstitutional and placed an injunction against its enforcement, the case is now proceeding to the 9th Circuit. The video discusses the potential fate of the ban as it reaches this higher court. The creator emphasizes they are not a lawyer and this content represents their opinions, not legal advice. Disclaimers regarding affiliate links and safety precautions for any demonstrations are also included.
This video delves into the legal strategy behind Judge Roger Benitez's decision in the Duncan v. Bonta case, which challenged California's magazine ban. The discussion explores theories about whether Judge Benitez had a "master plan" in releasing his opinion during a specific timeframe, particularly in light of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals' intervention on an emergency motion for a stay. Mark Smith of Four Boxes Diner, a constitutional attorney and Second Amendment advocate, provides analysis on these questions, drawing on his expertise and past interactions with judicial figures.
This video discusses an update regarding a magazine ban in California, focusing on the legal proceedings involving the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. The content highlights a perceived 'shady' acceptance of an appeal, suggesting a critical legal development for firearm owners in California. The description also includes several links for viewer support and merchandise, emphasizing the channel's reliance on its audience.
This video discusses California Governor Gavin Newsom's reaction to Judge Roger Benitez's ruling that the state's magazine ban is unconstitutional. The description highlights that Newsom seemingly "snapped" over this decision, implying a strong emotional response. The video also includes promotional links for USCCA, social media, and merchandise, along with disclaimers about not being a lawyer and that the content is for educational and entertainment purposes only, not to be replicated at home.
