Heller and the meaning of "in the home"

Op-ed asks some questions about the scope of Heller's application to self-defense "in the home".

For starters, to what does "in the home" apply? It is clear that it applies to a person's residence, whether a single family house or apartment. Would it apply to a room rented by a boarder in a dwelling occupied by other boarders and/or an owner and family?

While "home" presumably, applies to a second residence such as a vacation house; would it apply to a hotel or motel room? What about a cabin at a campsite; or a tent or sleeping bag at such site? Would it matter if the camp site were on federal, state, or private land?

What about a motor home or similar vehicle used as a temporary or permanent residence?

If an individual has a constitutional right to possess a handgun for self-defense, would any or all of these "residing places" qualify as the equivalent of a "home" under the Heller case?

Should an individual be able to transport a firearm from one "residing place" to another for self-defense? If so, would that ability clash with previously recognized limitations on concealed carry?

The court (and the lead dissent) relied heavily on interpreting historical events and the "originalist" meaning of the Second Amendment. At the time of the drafting and adoption of the Second Amendment, people who traveled usually did so by coach, wagon or horse, and stayed in inns, boarding houses, or open fields. Many times their safety would be more at risk, and their need for self-defense greater, while traveling than when in their homes.

To what extent, if any, should the Supreme Court rely on those contemporaneous realities and experiences in deciding future cases involving self-defense and "in the home"?

All these issues will probably end up getting litigated, and any differing results (that rely on Heller) between the federal circuit courts will likely need to be resolved by the Supreme Court.