The article was about someone fighting off robbers...
WITH A GUN and continuing TO SHOOT while the robbers WERE FLEEING. That’s the issue I was addressing, which was RIGHT ON TOPIC.
You said many other states have provisions similar to California’s, but I countered that the other states’ provisions are written from the perspective that the right to keep and bear arms is foundational to those states’ constitutions, which it is. The California provisions are CLEARLY written and structured from the perspective that RKBA is NOT foundational to the California Constitution, which is abundantly evident from the fact that guns are illegal, except, except, except, which is unique to California and is tantamount to the law GRANTING the right as opposed to other states assuming the God-given right and then creating regulations to limit the unfettered exercise of those rights. Take away those other states’ regulations and you have gun right in those states through their constitutions. Repeal the EXCEPTIONS to California’s “no guns” laws and you have no gun rights.
Then you faked left by saying the the California Supreme Court decision did not hinge on no constitutional provision of the right to keep and bear, but here’s the money quote from the decision for you (hint: it’s straight from the wording of the decision):
“If plaintiffs are implying that a right to bear arms is one of the rights recognized in the California Constitutions declaration of rights, they are simply wrong. No mention is made in it of a right to bear arms.”
See? The CA Supreme court is EXPLICITLY STATING that California has NO RKBA in its Constitution. That was the BASIS for their overturning a lower court decision that found the Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act unconstitutional BECAUSE, the CA Supreme Court said, that California does not have RKBA in its Constitution. That is the operative finding in the California Supreme Court, THE ADJUDICATOR OF CA LAWS. No gun rights in the CA Constitution is the reason for the Supremes’ ACWA decision and for the exceptions-only basis for any ability of anyone to keep and bear arms in California. Now maybe they fear being overturned by Scotus, but once that is dealt with by a super-lib Scotus, there is no reason why California won’t start removing what is really just exceptions to the no-gun tack of California gun laws, based on the no-gun California State Constitution and backed-up by no-gun findings of the California State Supreme Court!
Have I said it clearly enough?
As I've already explained, this is incorrect. The "money quote" isn't explaining the basis for any decision. It's a passage responding to one specific argument put forth by one side, that the California constitution included a right to bear arms. The court simply responded to that, saying it doesn't. Which is true. It did not say that fact was the basis for any final decision, it's just one quote pulled out of a larger written decision.
It remains a fact that whether the California constitution contains an explicit right to bear arms or not, the federal one does, and applies in California. Whatever the actual basis for that decision was, it was not that.
And still, I don't know what that all has to do with what happened in this attempted robbery.