I don't agree with California's position on the 2nd amendment, but it is constitutional.
The second amendment has not been "incorporated". When it comes to second amendment issues, therefore, states are bound only by their state constitutions -- California's state constitution (along with, I think, five other states) is mute on the RKBA.
"Another important factor in the small arms-control debate is federalism. Like all the other Bill of Rights Amendments, the Second Amendment was originally added to the Constitution to limit the power of the federal government only. Both the 1876 decision of United States v. Cruikshank and the 1886 decision of Presser v. Illinois recognized this and explicitly stated the Second Amendment limits the power of the federal government only."
"The basic liberties of the Bill of Rights did not become applicable to the states until after the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. Among other things, the Fourteenth Amendment prohibited the states from depriving "any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." Through a tortuous, decades-long process, the Court eventually adopted the view that certain fundamental liberties in the Bill of Rights could be incorporated through the due process clause and turned into limits against the power of the states also. In separate decisions, the right of free speech, the right to freely exercise one's religion, the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and so on, were made applicable to the states by the Justices."
"The Second Amendment right to bear arms, however, has never been incorporated by the Court into the Fourteenth Amendment. The result is that today the Second Amendment, whatever it may mean, operates to restrict only the power of the federal government. The states remain unfettered by the Amendment's limitations. They remain essentially free to regulate arms and the right to bear them as they choose, in the absence of strictures in their own state constitutions and laws."
-- time.com, Alain Sanders
I don't normally recognize "time.com" as an authority on the limits of government.
I am aware of the "incorporation" issue surrounding the 2nd amendment, but do not agree that the way this issue has been interpreted by our courts is backed up by sound reasoning. There is simply no reason not to incorporate the 2nd amendment into the 14th; we know that the constitution restrains the government from infringing the bill of rights, and the lack of "incorporation" is more about statist control than a true constitutional grant of power to regulate firearms by the states.
robertpaulsen touts:
"The Second Amendment right to bear arms, however, has never been incorporated by the Court into the Fourteenth Amendment.
The result is that today the Second Amendment, whatever it may mean, operates to restrict only the power of the federal government.
The states remain unfettered by the Amendment's limitations.
They remain essentially free to regulate arms and the right to bear them as they choose, in the absence of strictures in their own state constitutions and laws."
-- time.com, Alain Sanders
The Gun Zone RKBA -- Time Magazine's Anti-gun Agenda
Address:http://www.thegunzone.com/rkba/rkba-time.html
Funny, there is a qualifier at the beginning of the First Amendment: Congress shall pass no law. I see no such qualifier at the beginning of the Second Amendment, and instead it closes with very absolute, clear language: shall not be infringed. I don't see any mention that this only applies to Congress or the federal government. All I see is shall not be infringed - PERIOD.
So this guy is blowing smoke out his tailpipe. I do agree that it took the 14th Amendment to apply the 1st Amendment to the states. But no such action is needed for the 2nd - it applies across the board because of the way it is written. No SCOTUS action required - and that is something both the Justice Department and even liberal Constitutional scholars such as Lawrence Tribe agree upon.