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.
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.
Which brings us full circle. You say about Brown:
~ " --- she is following the law correctly."
"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 earlier, it is quite clear that she thinks the 2nd can be infringed upon by our States.