This is why the dicta in Heller was so bad. Every leftist judge in the Country has latched onto the dicta to try to limit the 2nd Amendment to nothing more than allowing possession of a gun in a home. That dicta should have never been in there in the first place.
I agree, but McDonald v. Chicago is the fix.
What's so bad about it? I know it's not perfect, but please use the link to show me what else you may object to.
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26
If the Second Amendment only requires the states to allow a person to possess a gun at home, then how does a person get the gun to his her or home without violating state law?