I doubt there are any current jurisdictions (although I haven't researched it) in which a person cannot keep a firearm in his/her home for purposes of self-defense (although there have been some weird decisions about using them to shoot intruders; also, Washington D.C. enacted a law prohibiting homeowners from possessing handguns, but it was declared unconstitutional).
Apart from that, as I said elsewhere (see
here), I view this issue, like many constitutional issues, as one where compromise is necessary to strike a reasonable balance between individual rights and the protection of society at large. While hunters have legitimate reasons to possess rifles and shotguns, automatic assault weapons and armor-piercing ammunition have no legitimate purpose other than to kill other humans and should be banned, except for law enforcement and military. We should retain our laws that criminalize possession of firearms by felons, and no one should be allowed to carry a concealed firearm without a permit, as current laws usually provide. I'm not worried about NRA members shooting me, but I sure as hell worry about the plethora of amoral criminals who have no regard for life and no compunction about killing you, me, or our loved ones. Face it--the USA inexplicably has the highest rate of gun violence in the developed world, and we are uniquely prone to exceptionally high rates of murder by firearms.
Given that it's impossible to predict who's going to use firearms legitimately vs. for criminal purposes, I favor taking temptation out of people's hands, except (1) for those who qualify under permit laws that the majority of us agree on, and (2) within the home (though I agree that most times it's the homeowner who suffers, not the intruder, or a family member who suffers at the hands of the homeowner, deliberately or accidentally). I grew up in a home that always kept a loaded rifle handy, but I was taught to always--always--treat any firearm as if it were loaded. I don't keep any now, nor have I for quite some time.
While legally this is a hotly disputed area, and I'm going to catch some flack on this from those who view the U.S 2nd Amendment as an absolute right of individuals to bear arms, the majority of federal courts disagree, holding that the language instead guarantees a collective right of society, not individuals therein. Additionally, although 31 states include wordings in their state constitutions about the right to arms--for "individual right", "defense of self", "defense of home" or similarly worded reasons--whether this has relevance to the issue remains a matter of dispute. The courts generally find regulation of firearms to be permissible (although there are certain exceptions), and I agree with that.
