"Correctly", only if you regard the 2nd Amendment as an arguable proposition. It is not arguable, it is a clearly worded right of the people of the US, not to be infringed.
"Reading between the lines", I suspect she (if appointed to the Supreme Court) would fall into an "individual right" point of view, since she is a "strict constructionist".
Guess all you want, but from her own words, quoted above, it is quite clear that she thinks the 2nd can be infringed upon by our States.
Sorry bubba, but you are wrong on all counts.
Why do you say that if you 'wish' otherwise?
Not that I don't wish you were right--but I've been following and studying this issue for a LONG time,
Me too. I acquired my first gun about 60 years ago. And gave up my gunsmithing license in protest to the GCA of 68.
and what I said is the current correct legal situation as it stands under state and Federal law,
You call it 'correct & legal', I call our current CA 'situation' a clear violation of our RKBA's.
and is what you or I would be tried and sentenced under if we were somehow brought to court on the issue.
Which proves what? That the 2nd amendment does not apply in CA?
As current ACCEPTED legal precedent goes, until the Supreme Court rules on the difference between the Ninth Circuit ruling, and the Fifth Circuit ruling, the "absolute individual rights" interpretation (which it happens is the one "I" agree is correct) is NOT the universally accepted law of the United States.
Many of our inalienable rights are not universally accepted in the USA. To me, that is an unacceptable situation. -- Although some bubbas differ.
As an unlimited individual right---yup--exactly that (likewise Oregon and Washington and whatever other states the Ninth Circuit ruling covers). The only thing saving our asses in those other states is that, unlike California and New Jersey, those states DO have RKBA clauses in their STATE constitutions.
"Many of our inalienable rights are not universally accepted in the USA. To me, that is an unacceptable situation. -- Although some bubbas differ."
I agree--but my point is that your position is a nicely theoretical one, while mine is simply pointing out what the courts, and federal and state officers will use to make legal judgements. Thee and me think that is wrong---but that cuts no ice when a person is up against the justice system.