If I understand your contention Kalifornia is precluded from tough gun laws ... but it is what it is
CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE SECTION 410.10
410.10. A court of this state may exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of this state or of the
United States.
Just wondering out loud, what part of my previous post are you referring to as a contention since I substantiated my "assertion" about gun rights with the Supreme Court's official clarification of the purpose of the 2nd Amendment?
Regarding your statement about Kalifornia, note that the BoR didn't originally apply to the states. And as evidenced by 2A's reference to militias, the states could regulate guns, although I don't know to what extent. But I think that in earlier days of the country that state lawmakers understood the necessity of guns for self defense.
On the other hand, John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment, had ofificially clarified that 14A applies 2A to the states. See 2A in Bingham's official discussion of 14A.
Congressional Globe, House of Representatives, 42nd Congress, 1st Session
2A is mentioned in the middle column of the referenced page.
Interestingly, the way I read Sec. 5 of 14A is that it forces Congress to make laws which, in 2A-related issues, protect gun rights from being abridged by the states.