Thanks for posting this opinion. Let’s be clear on some points anyone can see after reading it.
1. The plaintiffs really wanted the broader question of “can states limit how one carries a firearm within their borders” answered. In other words, the original case was to sue over restricting concealed carry to only those with a “clear reason” but it had broader implications.
2. The plaintiffs already won the more narrow goal (narrow relatively speaking of course) which was to get the sheriff’s demand to show “clear reason” off the books. As the opinion you linked shows, the Ninth Circuit (amazingly) actually overturned that requirement and called it unconstitutional so it’s no more. One can now carry a concealed weapon in San Diego county without having to jump through additional regulatory hoops (although you still have to have a license/permit get a background check etc). But you don’t have to give a “good reason” to do so anymore.
What is disappointing here, but not necessarily distressing (I guess depending how much of an issue this is for you the reader) is that the SC has declined to take up the larger issue mentioned in point 1 above and for which the plaintiffs continued their case. The SC doesn’t want to touch the larger issue of “how much regulatory authority does a state have over how a firearm is transported in public” apparently.
And this is what Thomas and Gorsich are saying: the Court should take up this case now because enough lower courts have ruled on cases such as this and this question (point 1) is of enough importance that there needs to be a definitive ruling on it. There’s been enough dancing around the larger issue in other words, that’s what Thomas and Gorsich are saying.
Bottom line though, at least, there haven’t been any back steps taken. No progress on the issue granted (states can still regulate the hell out of firearm use) but at least it’s not possible (for now) for the state of California to say to its citizens, “you can’t carry openly nor can you carry concealed” which is in effect banning the 2nd Amendment. That’s why the Ninth had to rule as it did, but in their cowardice refused to take up the larger issue in point 1. And now so has the SC.
So all we can do is keep bringing cases like this that show incremental encroachment, via onerous regulation, on the 2nd Amendment and hope some court if not the SC will take up this larger issue at some point. But in conclusion again at least for now there hasn’t been MORE encroachment, or destruction, of the 2nd Amendment.