California Assault Weapon Ban Destroyed By New AR-15!!!



In this video I discuss a new rifle by juggernaut tactical which if legal will undue a big aspect of CA’s assault weapon ban. I was able to speak with the owner and clarify some questions about this new product. Also, I got some information on their current featureless grip.
🇺🇸 Support the Channel🇺🇸
Join USCCA
Join The Patreon:
Special thanks to Patreon Members: Colin Smith, question question, and Roy Kim!
Join FPC: JoinFPC.org
Safelife defense:
Code: “armedscholar” for 10% Off
BlackoutCoffee:
Code: “ArmedScholar” for 10% Off

🎥 Follow Me On Other Social Media 🎥
Instagram:
Twitter:
Twitch:

📷 My YouTube Setup 📷
Camera: (Sony A7siii)
Lens: (Tamron 17-28)
Lighting: (GVM RGB)
Microphone: (Rode Wireless)
Camera Stand: (Broadcast Boom)

Legal Disclaimer: This content is not intended to provide any legal guidance or advice. Although I am a licensed attorney I am not providing any legal advice through this video. If you have any legal questions please contact a licensed professional in your area to address your specific issues.

DISCLAIMER: This video and description contains affiliate links, which means that if you click on one of the product links, I’ll receive a small commission. This helps support my channel and allows us to continue making awesome videos like this. Thank you for the support!

42 comments

  1. This reminds me of the Colt Sporter. After the assault rifle ban in California, in 1989, various gunmakers found loopholes in the law and attempted some workarounds. One was the Colt Sporter, it was an AR-15 variant that was for a period, legal in California. There may be more but the two changes I was aware of were, they milled off the bayonet lug and the upper and lower did not separate. Instead of a removable pin, there was a bolt, which allowed the upper to pivot but not separate, from the lower. Eventually, they just changed the law and that was the end of the Colt Sporter, as far as I know.
    For many years, I chose to illegally keep that rifle, stashed away, in defiance of the oppressive, overreaching state government in Sacramento. I was otherwise a law abiding, contributing member of society and a veteran. I now live in Las Vegas having become a political refugee from the state where I was born and raised, where both of my parents are buried. I am a member of a federally recognized Indian tribe in California and I can no longer live in the land of my ancestors, due to the insane, leftist, woke politicians that control the state. I voted in every election, it doesn’t matter, it won’t change, it just keeps getting worse.
    There are still thousands of assault rifles in California, all illegal, almost all in the hands of criminals, while law abiding citizens hope the legal 10 round clip their pistol is enough to take on a thug with an assault rifle, who knows that even if caught, they will be released with no bail.

  2. I've just got to ask how does gun control ever hold up in court??? Seriously I am so perplexed by this the Constitution very clearly states it shall not be "infringed", when this law was written it was written addressed as a militia a military force that is necessary to the security of the country, this was never supposed to change in a million years. So as the Constitution is written the militia should have equal weaponry to the military. If we had missile launchers at the time it was written they would have definitely been included. Cannons and artillery is included come on. I'm just really perplexed by this and you are a lawyer, how can it possibly hold up in court?? The law clearly states all infringements are null and void before they're even made 🙄. Them telling somebody they can't buy a handgun at 18 is a unlawful infringement and government overreach, the law clearly states it is null and void and should be ignored. Any judge who is not on my side with this is a actual criminal and belongs in prison. According to the law he just interprets however he wants.

  3. Unfortunately the gun grabber California DOJ won’t take the time to check this feature. It looks too much like a so called assault weapon. They will confiscate it and you’re going to have to go to court and pay an attorney fees to have it returned.

  4. It's not an "assault weapon" or a "assault rifle", it's just a rifle. Anything can become an assault "item" one is used to assault someone

  5. CA is such a beautiful state, ruined by the unconstitutional gun laws they have, They cant even own weapons to protect themselves equal to the weapons the criminals have that rob and terrorize small business owners . total disadvantage to the good guys. 6 shot revolver against 31 round glock 17 pistols. = good guys 0 bad guys 1. every time .

  6. I really enjoy your channel and appreciate the effort you put into sharing valuable information. Do you think filming in a different room could help grow the channel? I am not trying to step on your toes, but filming in a room with a blacklight while talking about fire arms law might affect your credibility. Just trying to be helpful.

  7. Doesn't matter attacking any rifle, that is constitional is constitional, if you got a tax stamp you got a ar pistol. I still don't believe that's constitutional able to bare arms. If you want to go after gun violents go after criminals hard. Not go after a law abiding citizen.

  8. I'm sure that the CA government will still make new regulations over and over. Some day in the future, folks in CA are forced to use musket rifles to defend themselves from gangs with AR.

  9. Did the cops military and feds get rid of their assault weapons?? Mags? This foundation and the fact that other states allow people to have these is definitive proof that these laws are unconstitutional. Pistol roster as well. All infringement.

  10. Banning so called assault weapons is 1000% unconstitutional. Ppl just put up with it. California law makers are breaking the law.

  11. The best video I have seen from you so far. Only because I’m am in the process of building my first AR 15 and I just found this grip about ten minutes before I saw your video. Must be fate.

  12. I hate to get into gray areas. This is why I would rather have a revolver that has the power of a rifle. However, were they not engaged in this garbage about a handle, I am sure the next thing they would do is require you to have a stamp to keep your revolver under a pillow that COULD suppress the sound from 180 dB to 120 dB from your .500 S&W.

  13. Let me be the friendly broken record. Commiefornia people. I'm glad this is doing well right now. But I wish your state was more "free". Free in quotes because you guys are just less free. We are all subjected by gun laws…..if we follow them….I do. But yeah…

  14. I can't find this lower on the JT website anywhere. Was it pulled from the store? Also, did they have this product as an 80% or just the complete lower?

  15. Thank you for the video. I ordered the trip a few days ago after making the decision I was confident it will pass the prick test of the doj. The info in this video now assured me I’ll be good to go.

  16. I don’t see why y’all argue with them bitches it’s our right shall not be infringed don’t need to be explained time to take them to war a government can not do that one’s you break that Constitution no more rules Then it’s time to go to war with them that’s how I feel

  17. I think y'all putting up with the 2A infringements, imposed upon you by the Communist Politicians (elected by you) in California, is ridiculous! Vote them out! Let's Go Brandon! #FJB

  18. Respectfully, I seriously doubt that this technical modification to the lower would make any difference in MASSACHUSETTS. The MA Atty. Gen. is a rabid gun-control fanatic who has unilaterally implemented and pushed her unconstitutional views upon the citizenry.

  19. Taking away citizens gun rights only WEAKENS law abiding citizens.
    While making the Criminal elements stronger !!!
    Do you think Criminals will abide by gun laws 😂😂

  20. For Newsom's tactic to work, the federal law which makes manufacturers of legal products not liable for their possible later misuse has to be ignored by those bringing suit. Assuming that a judge is reasonable and follows the law, the suit should be thrown out, but only after a defendent has incurred expenses. The defendent should then be able to bring suit against what was essentially a frivilous lawsuit which ignored that law and petition for fees and expenses. If the personal bringing the suit is an individual in name only, and is acting as a front for an organization which is funding the original suit, the defendent should be able to file for damages as well to ask that the DA investigate the suit as being in violation of federal law.

  21. rather then complying with their laws or trying to get around them why not just ignore them? eventually there will be no way around it you will either kneel or draw your weapon.

  22. I think Californians should wholesale stop obeying the moronic gun laws and do whatever they want…. they can't arrest you all, can they?

  23. Hi. PROUD C A L I F O R N I A N HERE. BORN AND RAISED! Guess what, if you don't like it here, feel free to move to Mississippi. CALIFORNIA is a blue state. Majority rules! Don't like it, move to a state that tells Democrats the same thing.
    By the way, when we pass this weapons ban, I will be the FIRST person to collect my 10,000 dollars from dude who made the video, and any of you that I SUSPECT of making, selling, owning or using a assault weapon!. I will gladly let all of you buy my first house!
    WAIT, WHAT? Don't like it? Sorry, Texas has paved the way! GOOD LUCK!

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.