As a young boy, I enjoyed target shooting, slowly graduating to sporting clays, trap and skeet when I got older.

When I turned 12, I took a hunter safety course and began hunting pheasants. As a 16-year-old, I also hunted deer.

Finally, there was the military. As a member of the Utah National Guard for 21 years, I regularly had to qualify, first with an M16 rifle and later a .45 pistol.

Though comfortable around guns, there is no way I would carry a concealed weapon, keep a loaded gun in my car for protection or place a locked pistol in my dresser drawer at home. To me, the potential dangers outweigh the benefits of personal protection. My big dog seems like a safer form of protection.

That said, I never supported gun control because I didn't think it would work. The bad guys would find a way to get guns. The surprisingly low number of accidents involving loaded guns or people with concealed-weapon permits gives credence to gun owners who say they can safely carry.

The debate over gun rights and the Second Amendment is more complex than many gun advocates care to admit. The recent Supreme Court ruling affirming the right of individuals to own firearms proved that point by leaving many unanswered questions.

Having met a fair number of gun-rights advocates in 30 years of covering hunting and shooting, I know many feel that any restriction - registration, bans on assault rifles, waiting periods, trigger-lock requirements or concealed-weapons laws - is unconstitutional.

But there are limits on all rights. As a journalist, I know the importance of freedom of the press, but I can't be irresponsible with it. That's why, for example, there are libel laws. Using that same argument, some firearm restrictions seem appropriate, a fact the Supreme Court recognized in its decision. In most places in the Salt Lake Valley, it is illegal to discharge a firearm. It is illegal for me to allow my kids or grandkids to use a BB gun or pellet rifle for target practice in my backyard. The Division of Wildlife Resources requires hunters to take an education class that emphasizes gun safety before issuing them a hunting license. The agency does not allow high-powered rifles to be used in crowded Wasatch Front canyons. It's also illegal for hunters to carry loaded rifles in their trucks or on their ATVs.

In each of those instances, safety considerations should be more important than gun rights. But I suspect that some gun-rights advocates might disagree.

While correctly affirming an individual's right to own a pistol or rifle, the Supreme Court left too many unanswered questions as to what safety restrictions government agencies can place on the use of firearms.

There is a middle ground here somewhere but, unfortunately, it's going to take years of new litigation to figure out which safety restrictions are legal and which go too far.

wharton@sltrib.com