First, sorry guys, noticed in post #44 I was typing faster than thinking and used 'de-facto' twice... meant ex-post facto.
Guess I'm still confused, randian. I believe the concept of ex-post facto to mean exactly that... that a current possession can not, now, be made illegal when it was previously legal. It does not however cover future possessions, but if the language of the bill itself makes the bill unconstitutional, then in theory at least, it can't become law and would have no bearing on current or future possessions.
That is why I am curious if a bill that is so clearly unconstitutional in its very suggestion, that the protected group (Californians) could take a case to the California State Supreme to require Incorporation... California's legal system to follow the limit of the Federal Law on the subject and make CA's gun control law subject to the Constitution and current Federal Law.
But I'm no lawyer, and certainly no Constitutional scholar... just thinking through my fingers. If I have this all wrong, please continue to set me straight.