Replies

You don’t get it.

The 9th decided that as long as a law does not restrict your ability to posess and defend your home with a firearm, it is not unconstitutional.

They ruled, in this case, that public places, like fairgrounds, can be ruled “off-limits” to firearm owners.

Heller opened the door for owning/posessing a narrow definition of firearms in your home ONLY. Liberals will decide that anywhere outside your home is prohibited territory (I’m sure they will be magnanimous and allow you to carry your firearm to the range for practice).

That was not the way I read it. The 9th did say that Heller said that the need for self defense was most acute in the home, but they never said the RKBA applied in the home only.

They ruled, in this case, that public places, like fairgrounds, can be ruled “off-limits” to firearm owners.

That's sort of true, but only applied to firearms owners who are actually carrying their guns, not all firearms owners. And that ruling makes sense in sensitive places like a court house.

However, the 9th also pointed out how the statute can now be attacked as being overly broad:

The Nordykes argue that the Ordinance is overbroad because it covers more than such sensitive places. They list the areas covered: “open space venues, such as County-owned parks, recreational areas, historic sites, parking lots of public buildings . . . and the County fairgrounds.” The only one of these that seems odd as a “sensitive place” is parking lots.

Odd indeed.

You don’t get it.
The 9th decided that as long as a law does not restrict your ability to posess and defend your home with a firearm, it is not unconstitutional.
They ruled, in this case, that public places, like fairgrounds, can be ruled “off-limits” to firearm owners.

Heller opened the door for owning/posessing a narrow definition of firearms in your home ONLY. Liberals will decide that anywhere outside your home is prohibited territory (I’m sure they will be magnanimous and allow you to carry your firearm to the range for practice).

I think this is a misconception. SCOTUS didn't rule that RKBA only applied to the home. They narrowly ruled on Heller's challenge which specifically was against a law that effectively infringed or banned firearms in the home. Heller didn't challenge his inability to carry outside the home and SCOTUS didn't rule on such.

While Nordyke noted the Heller ruling, it too didn't explicitly limit restrict RKBA outside the home, but rather on public property, and not all public property at that.