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?
Not at all. This wasn't a second amendment case -- this was a state of California law which did not violate the California or the federal constitutions. The Ninth ruled correctly in that sense.
As I posted the cases to you, it is well known that the Ninth Circuit 1) considers the second amendment binding only on the federal government, and 2) does not create an individual right. Now, given those two basic known facts, you can see how this wasn't a second amendment case.
However, that didn't stop Judge Reinhardt from taking the opportunity to bitch-slap the Fifth Circuit. And boy, did he. He carried on about "collective right", and militias, and Miller, and on and on. Had nothing to do with Silveira v. Lockyer -- it just gave him the opportunity to present the liberal side of gun rights. Here's an excellent article on the case.