[tpaine]

"Until the SCOTUS slaps down the Ninth yet again, and disposes of this ridiculous "collective right of the states to form militias" idiocy regarding the Second Amendment, or until we pass this amendment, ordinary law-abiding California citizens have no right to own firearms."
34

Incredible reasoning.
~If~ the USSC uses some phony excuse to avoid slapping the 9th Circuit & ~if~ the amendment fails, then what?

Then, you have admitted that "California citizens have no right to own firearms."

[mvpel]

Incredible reasoning.
~If~ the USSC uses some phony excuse to avoid slapping the 9th Circuit & ~if~ the amendment fails, then what?

Then, you have admitted that "California citizens have no right to own firearms."

You're exactly right, because under the law and case precedent as they stand right now, we don't have any right to "own or possess" firearms.

The politicians have free reign to pass any manner of gun ban and restriction that they like, from the statewide level right down to the towns with one stop light, and free reign to throw us in jail for violating them, and in absence of an individual rights ruling from the SCOTUS or the amendment, that is the prevailing state of affairs in California.

If the amendment fails, it will be a clear message to California gun owners that our political opponents would rather see us dead than defending ourselves with a firearm, and that it's time to pull up stakes and move to Nevada or Oregon.

[dbrutus]

Actually, it does not mean that the right does not exist, merely that the government does not honor the right, tipping the US govt. closer to the awful status of an illegitimate govt. which is subject to Thomas Jefferson's right of rebellion. Dred Scott was a similar decision that unfortunately was never corrected so we ended up having a civil war over slavery.