You've used up a lot of electronic ink to dodge the question here. Many scholars recognize that the Second Amendment "protects" an individual right. The clear meaning of the Ninth Circuit's reference to the Second Amendment was to deny that it referenced in any way an individual right. How is it not reasonable to presume that it would have been relevant if the Second Amendment DOES protect an individual right.
Much like the Ninth Circuit, you seem to enjoy quoting irrelevancy which may be literally true ("The Second Amendment does not CONFER an individual right") and then conclude from that that there is no individual right, which is exactly how the reference was used in the Ninth Circuit's opinion.
It is my recollection that US vs Miller states unequivocally that the Second Amendment refers to an "existing" right and that that right is in no way dependent upon the Second Amendment for its existence. Only tortured defenses such as that which you supply for the Ninth Circuit have allowed Miller to be used to support a "collective right" interpretation which is nowhere present in Miller.
First, it struck down Silveira v. Lockyer. The court knew the California constitution didn't protect Silveira, and the court knew that the second amendment 1) didn't apply to the states, and 2) the second amendment did not grant an individual right to keep and bear arms.
At the time the Ninth heard Silveira v. Lockyer, it "had already rejected the Second Amendment at least four times, holding that it does not create a fundamental individual right, and also that it is not a restriction on state laws because the Second Amendment only applies to the federal government. Fresno Rifle & Pistol Club v. Van de Kamp, 965 F. 2d 723 (9th Cir. 1992); Hickman v. Block, 81 F. 3d 998 (9th Cir. 1996), cert denied, 519 U. S. 912 (1996); San Diego County Gun Rights Committee v. Reno, 98 F. 3d 11121 (9th Cir. 1996); United States v. Mack, 164 F.3d 467, 474 (9th Cir. 1999)."
-- nationalreview.com
The second thing the Ninth did was to write an opinion destroying that of the 5th Circuit.
"you seem to enjoy quoting irrelevancy"
I enjoy quoting fact. You're the one making things up. You're the one who stated, "why was it necessary for the Ninth to declare the Second Amendment to not protect an individual right?" They never said that.
"It is my recollection that US vs Miller states unequivocally ..."
Uh, I'm going to wait for the actual quote from the actual case, if you don't mind. I don't trust your "recollection". Please provide it, then I'll comment.