This isn't deciding the issue once and for all, it is side stepping it. The political sh*tstorm that would follow a Constitutionally "correct" ruling keeps judicial "politicians" from risking their careers. This does not in any way make thier silence correct.
Also, while it is just fine and dandy for a State to add to a Rights protections, no State who has ratified the US Constitution and its attendant Amendments has legal authority to restrict a US citiznes protected Rights without due process in a criminal trial. Once a State Legislature has signed off on the US Constitutions "Supreme Law of the Land" clause, they cede power in that area. Or, at least they should.
As we are seeing with California, New York, New Jersey, and a couple others, they are ignoring the US Constitution and the Fed Gov is letting them. Power has corrupted the system and "We the People" no longer have the Will to force them to behave.
BINGO.
The 9th Circuit ruled that second amendment protection did not apply to this case, since the second amendment did not protect an individual RKBA. Therefore, the plaintiffs lacked standing (ie., they were not part of a militia).
The USSC was correct in not hearing this case. This was a valid state law in question, not a federal one.
The law to challenge on second amendment grounds was the 1994 AWB. It wasn't.
Dead Corpse wrote:
Actually. It has. The USSC was presented with just such a case in Silveria V Lockyer. They refused to hear it out right with no comment.