In terms of honoring the right, the first step is to be as precise as possible in defining what the right is. I would frame it this way: An individual has a constitutional right to possess a handgun in the home and have it immediately available for self-defense.

The court's opinion was ambiguous about whether the right extends beyond the home to public spaces. The opinion spoke of having a gun to meet confrontations, which, of course, can occur outside of the home. It also approved of limiting guns in certain places such as government buildings, thereby implying that guns might be acceptable in other public places. Still, the majority repeatedly linked the new right to self-defense in the home, and, given the dangers of broadening the right outside of that sphere and the court's oft-professed self-restraint, a legislature should be free to confine handguns to the home.

Second, we must be careful to identify what handguns citizens may have. The court was unclear about whether handguns include semiautomatics. It told us that handguns are protected because they are America's most popular, "quintessential self-defense weapon." Handguns are easier to store in a readily accessible location and harder to wrestle away, and they require less upper body strength than, say, shotguns. Semiautomatic handguns fit the bill. They are popular and often easier to afford and quicker to load than revolvers. They should be permissible, though limits on magazine size (fewer than 12 bullets) would reasonably diminish the weapon as a killing machine without detracting from its self-defense value.

Click on the link for the rest of the story. Carryconcealed.net's management does not agree with everything in this Washington Post Story.