According to gun rights commentator William from Copper Jacket TV, a major Second Amendment case is finally moving again after years of delays. The case, Miller v. Bonta, challenges California’s ban on so-called “assault weapons” and has been stalled at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals for over a year. First filed nearly a decade ago, Miller has been used as a legal battleground to determine the limits of state-level gun control laws.
In his latest video, William explains that this case is especially significant because it strikes at the heart of California’s firearm feature-based restrictions – laws that regulate not the action of a firearm, but external components that define how a rifle functions. The case was put on hold in January 2024 pending the outcome of another critical case, Duncan v. Bonta, which dealt with magazine bans.
California’s Strategy: Follow Duncan’s Lead
Now that the Duncan decision has been issued, Miller is once again active. And California is wasting no time leaning on Duncan to support its assault weapons ban. As William explains, the state’s legal team has filed new briefs that draw heavily on the reasoning in Duncan, where the court ruled that magazines holding more than 10 rounds are not “arms” protected by the Second Amendment but rather “accessories.”
In Miller, California is attempting the same argument: that assault weapons are defined by features like pistol grips, collapsible stocks, and handguards – which are also, according to the state, “optional accessories” not protected under the Second Amendment. As William points out, this approach is troubling because it allows the government to redefine fundamental tools of self-defense as unnecessary enhancements.
Judge Benitez’s Earlier Ruling
Back in 2023, federal Judge Roger T. Benitez, famous for coining “Freedom Week” during his ruling on magazine bans, found California’s assault weapon restrictions to be unconstitutional. He concluded there was no historical tradition of banning firearms based on cosmetic features and that the state’s laws were overly broad and punitive.
However, despite Benitez’s ruling, a stay was placed on his decision. That allowed California’s assault weapon ban to remain in place while the state appealed. “This case has been going on since at least 2015,” William reminds viewers, “and the Ninth Circuit has used every stall and delay tactic possible to keep the law in place.”
What California Considers “Unprotected Accessories”
The state’s latest argument boils down to this: if you can operate a firearm without a particular part, then that part isn’t essential and can be banned. “They’re saying things like scopes, slings, even grips are optional,” William says. “And therefore, California has the authority to prohibit them.”
This accessory-based logic, William warns, opens a dangerous door. “If it’s not functionally required for the firearm to operate in its most barebones state, they say it’s unprotected. That includes the features that make a rifle ergonomic, safe, and customizable for individual needs.”
The Ninth Circuit’s Predictable Leanings
As many gun rights advocates know, the Ninth Circuit has a reputation for upholding gun control measures. William expresses little optimism about how the court will rule in Miller. “We all know which way the Ninth Circuit leans,” he says, adding that the court is likely to side with California again, especially now that it has Duncan to cite as precedent.
But that doesn’t mean all hope is lost. William believes the case is eventually heading to the U.S. Supreme Court, especially if conflicting rulings begin piling up in different circuits. “This is another case that’s going to get sent up to the Supreme Court,” he predicts. “It’s going to take SCOTUS to stop this trend.”
Featureless Rifles and Backdoor Bans
California’s feature-based ban doesn’t outlaw entire firearms by name – it outlaws the presence of certain components that define a gun’s design and usability. “You can own a featureless rifle,” William explains. “But that means stripping it down to the point where it’s nearly useless, just to stay compliant.”
This concept of “featureless” firearms creates confusion for law-abiding gun owners, who are expected to navigate a maze of definitions just to stay out of legal trouble. William stresses that this legal theory essentially amounts to a backdoor gun ban. “They’re banning anything that makes the firearm more comfortable, safe, or efficient to use.”
Dangerous Precedents for Other States
One of the biggest dangers of the Miller case isn’t just what it means for California, but what it could signal to other anti-gun states. If the Ninth Circuit rules that firearm features are accessories and therefore not constitutionally protected, it could open the floodgates nationwide.
“This is about more than just California,” William warns. “Other states will see this and think they can ban detachable magazines, optics, or even forward grips. All they have to do is claim it’s an accessory.” If that logic holds up in court, it sets a precedent that Second Amendment protections only apply to the most primitive firearms.
The Role of the Firearms Policy Coalition
Fortunately, gun rights organizations are not standing idly by. The Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC), known for its aggressive litigation strategy, has submitted new briefs in support of Miller. William praises the FPC’s legal team, calling them “one of the best, hands down.”
“They had incredible arguments,” he says. While the details of the FPC brief weren’t covered in the video, their involvement signals that this will be a well-fought case, potentially positioned for Supreme Court review if needed.
Accessories Today, Everything Tomorrow?
The bigger issue raised by Miller v. Bonta is how the government defines what a constitutionally protected “arm” is. If courts accept California’s argument that accessories are separate from arms, then any component, no matter how critical to real-world use, could be up for restriction or ban.
“That’s how they’ll chip away at everything,” William says. “First it’s the stock. Then the optic. Then your sling, your grip, your trigger. Until you’re left with a metal stick that barely functions as a firearm.” This strategy reframes the Second Amendment as a protection only for bare-minimum functionality, not practical or effective arms.
What Happens Next?
With new briefs filed, the Ninth Circuit will begin reviewing arguments in the months ahead. But as William explains, the outcome may already be predetermined. “The Ninth Circuit will do whatever they can to side with California,” he says. Still, the legal process must play out before the issue can advance to higher courts.
In the meantime, California’s assault weapon ban remains in full effect, despite being ruled unconstitutional by a federal judge. The state continues to enforce laws that many believe violate the Supreme Court’s Bruen framework, which requires gun laws to align with the nation’s historical traditions of firearms regulation.
The Supreme Court Must Step In
Ultimately, William from Copper Jacket TV sees this as another test case destined for Washington. He emphasizes that the Supreme Court must act, not just in Miller, but also in related cases like Snope, Ocean State Tactical, and Duncan, to put a stop to creative interpretations of the Second Amendment.
“California’s using the courts to define rights out of existence,” he says. “We need SCOTUS to say, once and for all, that firearms include the components that make them usable. Otherwise, we’re going to see gun control by a thousand cuts.”
Ed spent his childhood in the backwoods of Maine, where harsh winters taught him the value of survival skills. With a background in bushcraft and off-grid living, Ed has honed his expertise in fire-making, hunting, and wild foraging. He writes from personal experience, sharing practical tips and hands-on techniques to thrive in any outdoor environment. Whether it’s primitive camping or full-scale survival, Ed’s advice is grounded in real-life challenges.