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.
You failed to address the fact that the Ninth Circuit included the quote in question as a means of dismissing that the Second Amendment refers to an individual right. What they said, that the Second Amendment does not "confer" a right, while literally true, was intended to deny that an individual right exists.
You seem to ignore the self-serving judicial errors which have allowed the Ninth to make their ridiculous claims.
YOU have said, I believe, that the Second Amendment protects an individual right, but only from infringement by the federal government. Does this not obligate the Ninth Circuit to similarly recognize the individual right referred to in the Second Amendment? Or are they free to continue with the "collective right" invention?