<snip snip snip>
It certainly has caused a split in the circuit courts. In the ruling, the CA9 addressed why they though the other courts were in error in their judgements. Because the logic in Heller was so closely followed, and SCOTUS was so heavily quoted in the decision, I think some serious cognitive dissonance will have to occur on the part of the judges in an en banc hearing to go against what the SCOTUS has said.
The decisions of the other courts (2,3 and 4) all hinged on "prior long standing regulations being presumptively constitutional." They looked at concealed carry alone and determined it was outside the scope of the 2nd Amendment so they didn't bother to look deeper, or they weighed it against the need of the government to protect public safety and deemed the restrictions constitutional.
The two different logical approaches to similar questions, and the differing outcomes, make it much harder for SCOTUS to ignore a carry case for much longer. No matter which way the 9th en banc decides, this will probably be appealed to SCOUTS and with the extensive research and reasoning of the CA9 in this case, I find it hard for SCOTUS not to hear this one.