[matthew fuller]

"the right to keep a gun at home for self-defense"

Where in the second amendment does it say "at home" or "self defense"?

[Olog-hai]

Says nothing of the sort. It instead says “shall not be infringed”, which means the SCOTUS becomes lawless if they rule against that law.

[Theoria]

That was Scalia and crew with Heller. They helped put limitations on gun ‘rights’.

[Redcloak]

The ruling in Heller was specifically about the Washington DC ban on firearms in the home. Thus Scalia limited himself to that narrow aspect of the 2nd Amendment. The self defense aspect is part of the reasoning that the 2nd Amendment is, and always has been, about firearms ownership for personal defense. In Peruta, the 9th Circuit made it clear that any previous rulings, particularly the post-Miller rulings, that do not view the 2nd Amendment in that light are not valid and were not part of their deliberations. From there, they reasoned that the right to a means for self defense could not be reasonably limited to the home. California law, by denying any means for carrying a firearm for self defense to the vast majority of citizens in places like SD County or LA County, violates that right.