Aldisert is clearly uncomfortable with the result -- to him the state may require "an objective need for self defense" under the 2A.
As a technical writer, editor, and native speaker of English -- but not an attorney -- it strikes me that there is and cannot be any "objective" need for self-defense. I once received a vaguely threatening letter. Neither the local police nor the FBI ever determined who sent it, and there was only one. I very much felt threatened and believed that I had a need to be able to defend myself. The local police, on the other hand, treated it as more of a joke, and used it to teach a rookie detective how to screw up the evidence while dusting it for fingerprints.
said we have a "core right" to self-defense. Given that I have that right, it should not matter whether or not some local bureaucrat agrees that my perception of feeling threatened is sufficient to "allow" me to exercise that right.