California and six other state constitutions say nothing about protecting the RKBA. We're seeing the result of that in California which has its own state-level AWB.
States are also part of the Union. As such, they are subject to the Federal Constitution they ratified. Don't make me go back through all those threads digging up all those qoutes from the Founders. Again.
You aren't any more correct on that issue than you have been from the beginning.
The California Ban is unConstitutional. Period.
My state constitution explicitly states that the right to keep and bear arms shall in no way be infringed.
Does that mean that the federal AWB does not apply to my state? Or the 1934 Gun Control Act? Can I go out a buy a Thompson sub-machine gun without a federal license? I don't think so.
The U.S. Constitution and laws congress makes in pursuance thereof, (including laws based on treaties) trump state's laws and any Thing in state constitutions which are contrary. (Article VI, para 2) So I read that exactly the way it is written. If the feds want to impose anything on the states, all they have to do is pass a law and it becomes the supreme law of the land.
The problem with federal gun laws is that they violate the Second Amendment for they are not in pursuance to the Constitution and the BOR which is a continuous document. It is not for government to dictate to the people what the rules of engagement are when life itself and unalienable rights are at stake. Doesn't anybody get that?
Even if there were no federal gun laws or Second Amendment, the people are nuts to allow even the state to dictate the terms of engagement where life and liberties are at stake. Are we nation of Sovereigns and free men/women, or are we a nation of subjects and involuntary servants?