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.
Bold 'begging the question' idiocy. The Calif 'law' clearly infringes on my US Constitutional right to buy/own an 'assault' styled rifle.
The Ninth ruled correctly in that sense.
Only in the opinions of gun-grabbers, paulsen.
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.
Neither of your facts leads to that conclusion. The 2nd is part of our 'Law of the Land', which Calif officals & lawmakers are sworn to uphold. - They are violating the 2nd. Case closed, except to pettifogging gun-grabbers.
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.
Do you know Dave Kopel, paulsen? He is an prime example of the appeasement oriented american gun 'expert', the type who has lead us down the primrose path since 1934.
He can rationalize away most any gun restriction, in his 'wait till next year' philosophy of 'winning'. -- Hell, in one sense he seems to have built a pretty good career around being a professional dupe for the anti-gun movement.
The US Constitution grants you a right?