“in the home”...disastrous.
I don't think so. If it was necessary to keep the Heller decision so narrow in order to get Kennedy to go along, then that is what we have.
But there is nothing in the Heller decision that suggests that self-defense OUTSIDE the home is any the less worthy of protection. People operate businesses and have the right to defend themselves while doing so.
People travel the nation, for business and pleasure, and they do not give up that same right to self-defense described in Heller.
The anti-gunners have used incrementalism to keep adding more and more infringements, each time depending upon the fact that the new infringement is a logical extension of the prior infringements. Ignorant legislators, eager to make political points, have gone along with this.
Now the process is being reversed. Now that the Court has decided that handguns in the home are definitively protected, it remains to have a decision regarding private businesses. And then a decision regarding self-defense while in transit.
Some states permit only open carry. Some permit only concealed carry. The Court will need to recognize that the Second Amendment is silent on this issue. If the Founders intended for the government to dictate such a matter, the Second Amendment would have reflected that thinking.
I find myself marveling that the glacial pace of Supreme Court decisions has, in fact, been highly accelerated during that last few years. I don't think I will be nearly as gray as I thought when the infringements in Kalifornia are struck down.