Far from it.
When the Ninth Circuit says there is not an individual right conferred by the Second Amendment, it has an immediate effect in the sense that it upholds the California statute which spawned the litigation, and it has a future precedential effect in that it will be binding legal precedent on judges within the states that comprise the Ninth Circuit. It may also have precedential effect, as the National Review article points out, in other Circuits faced with the issue as a counter-balance to the Fifth Circuit decision that upholds Second Amendment individual rights.
A Supreme Court affirmance of the Ninth Circuit would settle the issue of interpretation of the Second Amendment for the entire country for at least the forseeable future.
I am not happy about what came out of the Ninth Circuit, but at least those of us who care about upholding Second Amendment rights are alive to fight another battle on another day. Hopefully, we will choose our battlefield and standard-bearer more carefully the next time out.
What makes you think that would have made any difference? It's not like they ruled on the merits of the case. They just ducked it. Refused to hear the pleas of the citizens, citzens not convicted of any crime, nor even charged with one. Meanwhile they are hearing the case of some convicted murderers who are whining because a judge, rather than a jury, pronounced the death sentence upon them, according to national news reports.