I can see that as well, to some extent. But it hardly creates faith in government to have SCOTUS uphold a catch-22 like this one. I agree with the logic in the lower courts - the BATF, for whatever reason, failed to offer a decision - but the net result of that was to make a de facto decision denying Bean the right to own a gun. As Rush once said (the group, not the person), "If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice..."
This is how I read it also. The plaintif was trying to show that the ATF's failure to act was the same as a refusal. It was ruled that it is not the same. I hate to say this, but I believe the ATF is not at fault here. Congress is...
It's not just a 1992 law. It's a provision in the appropriations act that must be renewed each and every year. It's just that if anyone seriously opposed it's inclusion, the presstitudes would gore the Congresscritter so badly that even a long term incumbent would fear for their relection. After all, look at what they are doing, or at least trying to do, to Lott over much less.
That's how I read it. I think there ought to be a rather stiff processing fee of perhaps $1,000 for a convicted to apply for a waiver. That ought to weed out unworthy applicants. I'm pretty much unsympathic to convicted felons who want to own firearms. There aren't very many whom I would trust.
I think the court was really saying it is up to Congress to change the law if it wants to.