Supreme Court punts on a potentially huge sleeper case

The Supreme Court has declined to hear a case with potentially major repercussions. The case involves a man convicted decades ago of a fairly trivial non-violent crime that could have allowed for a prison sentence. However, he served no time and has not been in trouble with the law before or since. Current Federal law prohibits anyone convicted of a crime punishable by more than a year in prison, the customary definition of a felony, from ever being able to own or possess a firearm, irrespective of whether the crime was violent or not. He has sued to have his gun rights restored. The US Court of Appeals in a split decision sided with him and the state appealed to the Supreme Court. The high court returned the case in question to the lower courts for reconsideration in light of its recent decision upholding a ban on firearms ownership by someone under a domestic violence restraining order. In that case, the 8-1 decision specifically stated that the government had a legitimate right to disarm people who could be reasonably seen as a threat to others. If that is now the legal standard, then this could have far ranged consequences. 

It is long established in law that convicted felons can be deprived of some of their civil rights. Until fairly recent times most states routinely barred felons from voting, serving on juries or holding elective office. Today, 49 of the 50 states have laws that more or less automatically restore some of those rights. (Virginia is the outlier.)  The conditions vary from state to state, but typically the right to vote is restored after an offender satisfies the terms of their sentence. However, almost all states do not allow for guns to be owned by persons with a criminal record, and the Federal law has been on the books since the late 1960s. 

I don't see how the courts could go down this particular path without upending all of this. Are they going to elevate the right to own a gun above the right to vote etc.? Are they prepared to strike down centuries of legal precedent and affirm basic civil rights for anyone not actually in prison? 

For the most part, the press and media have given only passing attention to this case and seem to be missing entirely its broader ramifications. This could be the legal equivalent to a ticking bomb.