He would be impaired by the State gubmint in which he works. That state has its own laws and rights, in its own Constitution. The Bill of Rights in the US Constitution was meant to pertain only to the national gubmint.
California does not have an equivalent, in its constitution, to the Second Amendment. Therefore the State and its municipalities are free to disarm citizens at discretion (and do) -- at least California law thinks so.
Binding the Second to the States makes all the difference in California's case. They just have never been forced to confront, until now, the divergence of their conception of citizens' rights from Original Intent.
A scholar will correct me, but I suspect that California's omission of 2A protections was deliberate, and goes back to the Civil War era, in which a freesoiler faction suppressed a Southern faction in the State to impose freesoiling as California law and prohibit slavery. One suspects that California intended to suppress the losing faction and disarm it as well, just as in Illinois after the Civil War, employers acting through the Republican legislature (but I repeat myself) passed a restrictive Militia Act that denied RKBA to Illinoisans (and especially union organizers) by restricting the right to the Militia (whose enrollment was limited to 8600 politically-connected "reliable" members). The landmark gun-control case titled Presser vs. Illinois resulted, and Presser was the cornerstone of the restrictive interpretation of gun rights in the 1939 Miller decision and other gun-rights cases decided since then on the basis of the opinion in Miller.