[publiusF27]

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.

[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.