Why is it rational basis and not intermediate scrutiny? I keep hearing people say this but they provide no real explanation as to why this is the case. If you want the courts to accept this you need to provide a reasonable explanation. Nobody has and SCOTUS has not stepped in to change it.
The court merely accepts the defendants' "public safety" argument with complete deference to them, without any examination of whether there is a factual basis for them, or just how much public safety is improved in denying the permits.
Isn't that pretty much the definition of rational basis, where the Court defers to the legislature or executive to determine potential efficacy of a policy? Intermediate scrutiny is indistinguishable from rational basis if one party's biased efficacy assertions are accepted verbatim, and interest balancing is only conducted with that biased data without question.