[Carry_Okie]

I agree with the objective of what you have posited. I'm not a lawyer, but the following does seem to have an overly broad possible interpretation:

B. This Amendment does not limit the State from regulating the acquisition and possession of arms by: felons, minors, the mentally incompetent, and any person subject to restraining orders based upon their own violent conduct.

Is "hate speech" violent? Is a fight in self-defense "violent conduct"? That last phrase seems to me a little too open to tweaking. Is there a way to restrict it more narrowly?

[goldstategop]

We want to make it clear to the anti-gun crowd we don't object to common-sense restrictions on guns. So that takes the issue off the table in the sense that its put the lie to the notion we are for a Wild West in California. The gun banners will have the burden of proving why unreasonable and capricious restrictions on gun ownership and self-defense should remain on the statute books.

[William Tell]

Carry_Okie said: Is "hate speech" violent? Is a fight in self-defense "violent conduct"? That last phrase seems to me a little too open to tweaking. Is there a way to restrict it more narrowly?

First, a disclaimer: I didn't write it. I believe a lawyer did.

The "violent conduct" may be vague, but the "restraining order" is not. This wording is probably strong enough to have protected Emerson. The Lautenberg law allows the disarming of a person if there is a restraining order at all. I don't believe that Emerson was ever accused of having threatened anyone, but just with having the gun.

[freedumb2003]

regulating the acquisition and possession of arms by: felons, minors, the mentally incompetent

Once the Demoncrats reads that part, we have to hope they don't realize they will not be able to keep and bear arms.