Got it. I read the 9th circuit opinion as describing three classes of person. One class is the group of people able to show a particularized need, substantiated by documentary evidence, to carry a firearm for self-defense.
Another group is a typical citizen fearing for his personal safety.
Another group is "mainstream," whatever the heck that is, I suppose "not fearing for personal safety."
The 9th Circuit says those last two categories as indistinguishable. They are, when the distinguishing quality being examined is "particularized need, substantiated by documentary evidence." Whether or not a person fears for their safety isn't even a factor to be considered. It could be that everybody is afraid, or nobody is afraid. The point the 9th Circuit is making is that a generalized "fear" for personal safety (I view this as general prudence, without fear) is insufficient justification for bearing arms.
As if bearing arms requires any justification to the government.
As I read further, Thomas comments on how the 9th purposely ignored the broad issue of being unable to carry arms in any fashion to focus on concealed carry in particular to thereby reach the conclusion they wanted to reach. A broader reading would almost certainly have forced an opposite conclusion he said. Disingenuous and they richly deserve a good slap down. They won’t get it yet it seems.