It might help to point out that the OP is concerned with a second opinion by the court in the case. A first opinion clarifies what courts understand infirnge to mean:
That is a narrow ruling on a particular permit for a new gun shop that doesn't constrain the aboility ot obtain guns in other shops.Writing for the majority, Judge Marsha Berzon easily dismissed the plaintiffs’ first argument—that Alameda County had infringed upon the rights of prospective gun buyers by refusing to grant the plaintiffs a permit. Alameda County, she explained, already contains at least 10 gun shops, including a Big 5 Sporting Goods store that’s just 600 feet from the plaintiffs’ planned retail establishment. “Gun buyers have no right to have a gun store in a particular location,” Berzon wrote, as long as “their access is not meaningfully constrained.”
That I have less argument with, I could understand you might not want a gun shop to open across from an elementary school for example.
It's the second broad opinion that, as an end around, does constrain obtaining guns.