They may not be now, but by your interpretation - coupled with your incredible passion for insisting thereon - they could be.
Under the power of ... what?
Same power that lets the feds enact and enforce 922(o). You don't seem to have a problem there. Just remove the "machine" prefix from "machinegun" in that law, and they're pretty much gone (save some expensive bickering over "it's legal, you just have to pay an insane price for pre-'86 ones").
Not all guns.
Why not? As you noted: "the California State Constitution does not protect the RKBA". Same goes for a bunch of other states. For those that do protect RKBA in their state constitutions, you've made it very clear that's a choice up to the majority (supermajority, whatever applies) of voting citizens in those states.
I've been following your posts for a long time. From what you have written (by the volumes), you advocate (with extreme prolific passion) an interpretation of RKBA and the 2nd Amendment whereby individual ownership of arms can, in all practicality, be outlawed (save for some legalistic saving trivial technicality, such as, say: militia members only consist of Irish-descended midgets, and they're only allowed muskets while on patrol for the UN in Nigeria).
The federal government reasonably regulates the interstate transportation of some guns that threaten public safety. These laws were examined by the courts under a "rational basis" review and found constitutional. I don't know who would think that a federal law banning all guns would be rational.
But this does bring up an interesting point. As recent as 1980 in Lewis v US, the U.S. Supreme court has used the "rational basis" review in gun cases saying:
"The firearm regulatory scheme at issue here is consonant with the concept of equal protection embodied in the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment if there is "some `rational basis' for the statutory distinctions made ..."
What makes that interesting is that if the U.S. Supreme Court thought an individual right was being infringed they'd use the "strict scrutiny" standard rather than "rational basis".
"For those that do protect RKBA in their state constitutions, you've made it very clear that's a choice up to the majority (supermajority, whatever applies) of voting citizens in those states."
No. For those states that do NOT protect the RKBA in their state constitutions, I've made it very clear that's a choice up to the majority (supermajority, whatever applies) of voting citizens in those states.
Are you saying that the people of a state cannot do that? They can't make a decision how they want to run their lives? Well excuse me, but who are you to tell citizens of another state how to live? Seriously.
Now, if a state law violates the federal constitution, that's a different story. If a state totally disarmed its citizens, they would not be able to assemble an effective, well regulated Militia. Congress, therefore, would be unable to perform its constitutional duty to use the state Militia to "execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections, and repel Invasions."
"From what you have written (by the volumes), you advocate (with extreme prolific passion) an interpretation of RKBA and the 2nd Amendment whereby individual ownership of arms can, in all practicality, be outlawed"
You read it correctly, but misinterpreted what I said. I'm not advocating anything. If I say the sky is blue it doesn't mean I think it should be that color. It just is.
I have repeatedly pointed out the dangers of taking this issue to the U.S. Supreme Court at this time. I have demonstrated why I believe this through numerous cites of federal courts cases that the U.S. Supreme Court will be looking at.
Because I do this, you and others have concluded I have some personal agenda. That's irrelevant. You have no logical and coherent arguments to make, so you start making assumptions about my personal motivations.
That's lame.