Such 'legal precedents' are not law. She is directly violating her Art VI oath to support the Constitution & its Amendments. [which oath takes precedent to all other oaths by virtue of the supremacy clause]
Remember, the Ninth Circuit (which covers California) has ruled on the federal level that the Second Amendment is NOT an "individual right", but a "right of the state to form militias". The Fifth Circuit, OTOH, has ruled that the Second Amendment "is" an individual right. At some point in the not too distant future, the Supreme Court is going to have to rule on the issue, but until they do, she is following the law correctly.
"Correctly", only if you regard the 2nd Amendment as an arguable proposition. It is not arguable, it is a clearly worded right of the people of the US, not to be infringed.
"Reading between the lines", I suspect she (if appointed to the Supreme Court) would fall into an "individual right" point of view, since she is a "strict constructionist".
Guess all you want, but from her own words, quoted above, it is quite clear that she thinks the 2nd can be infringed upon by our States.
As current ACCEPTED legal precedent goes, until the Supreme Court rules on the difference between the Ninth Circuit ruling, and the Fifth Circuit ruling, the "absolute individual rights" interpretation (which it happens is the one "I" agree is correct) is NOT the universally accepted law of the United States.