[Erik Latranyi]

The Nordykes argue that the Ordinance is overbroad because it covers more than such sensitive places.

And the 9th said it is not overbroad because it does not restrict firearms in the home.

Heller was wriiten in such a way, and with such comments, as to define the types of firearms allowed (by later courts) and where such posession may take place (forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings).

Therefore, you are going to have later courts define "ordinary weapons" and define what is a "sensitive place"...which is exactly what the 9th did.

[publiusF27]

And the 9th said it is not overbroad because it does not restrict firearms in the home.

No, they didn't. Produce a quotation from the opinion that says that the 2A can only apply in the home. They said that Heller said the need for 2A protection was especially acute in the home, but they twice indicated that it was the "efficacy of self defense" that was a 2A issue.

Next, the Court connected the statute’s operation to the conduct the Second Amendment protects: “the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of ‘arms’ that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose.” Id. It was thus the statute’s burdens on effective self-defense that implicated the Second Amendment.

They go on to cite the particulars of the Heller case, which involved firearms in the home, but the fact that Heller made the possession of firearms in the home a 2A protected right does not mean that the right can only exist in the home, and I did not see where the 9th said any such thing.