Replies

Well, does the Cali constitution include a right to bear arms or not? If not, didn't she correctly interpret California law? If the law violates a federally protected right, then isn't that up to a federal court to decide? Where did she err?

"This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land;

and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any state to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; -- "

"Well, does the Cali constitution include a right to bear arms or not?"

No, it does not. As I recall, only two states do NOT have RKBA clauses in their Constitutions--those being California and New Jersey.

"If not, didn't she correctly interpret California law? If the law violates a federally protected right, then isn't that up to a federal court to decide? Where did she err?"

Nowhere, unfortunately. She is EXACTLY following precedent at all levels. Remember, the Ninth Circuit (which covers California) has ruled on the federal level that the Second Amendment is NOT an "individual right", but a "right of the state to form militias". The Fifth Circuit, OTOH, has ruled that the Second Amendment "is" an individual right. At some point in the not too distant future, the Supreme Court is going to have to rule on the issue, but until they do, she is following the law correctly.

"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".