[William Tell]

robertpaulsen said: Personally, I would shoot for stronger language - something along the lines of "the people have the right to keep and bear arms".

But without explicit language to the contrary, that would only protect "sporting purposes", wouldn't it? All the "reasonable" restrictions in Kalifornia law would remain.

[robertpaulsen]

"But without explicit language to the contrary, that would only protect "sporting purposes", wouldn't it?"

Well, you could add, "...for defense of self and state".

If you feel the need to be specific, Delaware has a good one: Article I, § 20. “A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use.”