Here's a factual error. "So yes — people have a right to carry for self-defense…" This is a pretty wild assertion, and will come as quite a surprise to many, including many Californians. Currently, most Californians cannot exercise the right to carry a firearm. Such a right, if it exists, is so constrained as to be non-existent. This has been hotly contested; google "Peruta v California." The Heller decision did confirm the right to be armed in one's own home, so it seems like that should extend outside the home, but the SCOTUS has never ruled on the question of open or concealed carry. The author's ignorance has him way out in front of the Supreme Court! Somewhat ironically, though, he assumes what is most logical to be legal. In many states and municipalities, it is, for all intents and purposes, not.

Some of the other misconceptions here are deconstructed in an article I wrote, which also examines the electoral implications of various approaches to gun control in the 2020 presidential election.

Gun Control and the 2020 Swing States.

Speaking of the Heller decision, it explains its reasoning regarding the 2nd Amendment's use of terms like "militia," "well-regulated," "state," "people," "keep," "bear," and "arms." Highly recommended, although a bit dense ;-)