The effect of the proposed amendment cannot be challenged by claiming that it is a "collective" right because it uses language which explicitly refers to " ... the fundamental right of each person ...".
I can't see any reason why the Ninth would even find itself in a case. Similar language exists in other states and I am not aware of any claim that it conflicts with federal interests.
The California Supreme Court might take a swing at it, but there really isn't any way to declare a Constitutional Amendment unConstitutional. It is Constitutional by definition since it modifies the underlying document. If is in conflict with prior enactments, then it is the prior enactments that become unConstitutional.
They might try to suggest that it is vague, because it doesn't define arms. But even then, I think the court is obligated to assign some meaning if it is possible to do so, rather than reject it.
The effect of the proposed amendment cannot be challenged by claiming that it is a "collective" right because it uses language which explicitly refers to " ... the fundamental right of each person ...".
The 9th. Circuit Court has already used the "collective rights" argument in firearms issues brought before it. This court does not recognize any individual right in the 2nd Amendment. That CA Democrats and the Gun Control activists won't push for a California constitutional amendment to be voided by the 9th. is wishful thinking. AG Bill Lockyear, prodded on by Senators Jack Scott and Don Perata, will be in the van. If the amendment passes get ready for a fight. A big one.