These denials tend to be one-page affairs. I do not understand why the NRA and its allies insist on ignoring the FORTY-ONE pages of dissent that follow the order. Four 9th Circuit judges wrote dissenting opinions, all holding the individual right guarantee of the Second Amendment, and two citing the 5th Circuit US v. Emerson decision of 2001. Justice Kleinfeld's opinion takes up 36 pages of the ruling, and is a magnificent breakdown on both the history and genesis of the Second Amendment, and points out how gun control advocates (with or without robes) have been using the 1939 US v. Miller case as a club it wasn't designed for. Miller, too, affirms the individual right interpretation, and reiterates the historic and legal definition of "militia"! Miller only ruled that a sawed-off shotgun is not a militia weapon, thus Miller wasn't entitled to keep one.
Anyone with an interest in guns should read Judge Kleinfeld's opinion in that ruling. Anyone who doesn't like guns should read it to understand why gun control laws are an illegal method of solving the problems that concern them so. The NRA board of directors should be forced to read it Clockwork Orange-style so they will stop their counterproductive lambasting of the 9th Circuit.
The Supreme Court, wouldn't you know, once again played the sissy card and refused to hear an appeal of Silveira, the same way they refused to hear an appeal of Emerson two years before. We now have two circuits with conflicting law, and they refuse to do anything about it. I can speculate as to why, but those nine and God are the only ones that know.