A lot of analysis of today’s case says that the justices are leaning heavily toward affirming an individual right, but limiting that right to self defense in the home.
How is it that I might have an individual right to a gun for self defense in my home, but no right to carry a gun for self defense outside my home?
If I have an individual right to keep and bear arms, then like the rights to speech and press, it isn’t dependent on where I am. Do we limit free speech to the home? Do we limit the right to a free press to the home?
It’s also not dependent on what form of gun I keep and bear. The right to free press doesn’t limit me to just newspapers, nor should a right to keep and bear arms limit me to a particular form of gun. If I have a right to keep and bear arms, then that right applies to all arms.
I don’t see how you can argue that a handgun ban violates the 2nd amendment, but a machine gun ban doesn’t.
