I'm going to go back and re-read the decision, but I was under the impression that the dicision stated that they "were not addressing" the laws about carrying in "sensitive areas."
This is the same mistake which Miller brought about. The Court said they could not say, because no evidence was presented. Lower courts twisted this to mean the there was a clear prohibition.
The Court can address and rule only on what is presented in the case. If it is not presented, then the ruling doesn't touch it.
Pops