Anyone else notice the wide approach (excerpt from page 19-20 from the Opinion of the Court):
"Our decision in Heller points unmistakably to the answer. Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day,15 and in Heller, we held that individual self-defense is “the central component” of the Second Amendment right. 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 26); see also id., at ___ (slip op., at56) (stating that the “inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right”). Explaining that “the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” in the home, ibid., we found that this right applies to handguns because they are “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” id., at ___ (slip op., at 57) (someinternal quotation marks omitted); see also id., at ___ (slip op., at 56) (noting that handguns are “overwhelmingly chosen by American society for [the] lawful purpose” ofself-defense); id., at ___ (slip op., at 57) (“[T]he American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessen-tial self-defense weapon”). Thus, we concluded, citizens must be permitted “to use [handguns] for the core lawful purpose of self-defense.” Id., at ___ (slip op., at 58).
--
This seems to open a door to a carry case. The phrasing "'...most acute' in the home" seems like it begs the question of one's own right to have a firearm at hand when the need arises in a place other than the home. Alito says about the limit on a right to have a weapon: "We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as "'prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill', [and] laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings..."
This sounds like an invitation.
