Nice... but the premise is flawed: if the right to bear arms is unconditionally guaranteed by the State Constitution than stature/rule/ordnance asserting otherwise is unlawful. (That is to say that the board cannot lawfully restrict guns.)
ARTICLE 2, Section 26.
The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the state shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.
Well.. they did.