I don’t know. But if they the eight judges that voted against hearing the case, thought the law in question was unconstitutional, I don’t know why they wouldn’t want to hear the case.
Neither does Thomas, but like CatBus says, Thomas isn’t so demure as other Justices. We can only speculate, but there could be procedural issues in this case that caused Justices to feel it improper to take on. Sometimes they wait for a case that they think presents better facts for a decision. Sometimes the Court waits for several Circuit Courts to weigh in on a matter before it takes up a case. My speculation is that the Justices want to give the legal issues more time to develop. We lasted 200+ years without the Court declaring there to be an individual right to bear arms, let alone enforceable against the states - so what’s a few more years to suss out the details? Thomas’s dissent suggests that this is at least part of the divide.
Justice Thomas said: We have not heard argument in a Second Amendment case for nearly eight years…And we have not clarified the standard for assessing Second Amendment claims for almost 10. Meanwhile, in this Term alone, we have granted review in at least five cases involving the First Amendment and four cases involving the Fourth Amendment — even though our jurisprudence is much more developed for those rights.
Thomas is eager to put the 2nd Amendment on equal footing with other rights that have been developed in law over a much longer time. Thomas also has a very different view of how the Court should decide cases impacting constitutional rights than most Justices, so that plays into this also.