Ask mvpel -- it's his hypothetical. He said "the right to keep and bear arms". From that, I assumed an individual right.
I responded, yes, you have that right. That right, however, may not be protected by the state in which you live. It's not protected in Mr. Silveira's state. If he moved to another state, his right would be protected.
"In light of this pre-existing right, how should the Ninth have decided Silveira?"
In light of the fact that the constitution of the state of California does not protect Mr. Silveira's right to keep and bear an assault-style weapon made illegal by California law, the 9th ruled correctly.
Please tell me exactly what was wrong with that ruling -- I know you're familiar with the case.
It is an act of tyranny to infringe the rights of man.
Kalifornia does include a right to self-defense. Without the right to keep and bear arms, it is meaningless. The Ninth could easily have asked Kalifornia to clarify how a right to self defense can be protected if people are made defenseless.
There is not right to self-defense enumerated or protected by the US Constitution. But you and I have that right.