Someone correct me if I appear to be wrong here, but after reading the decision for the third time, I offer the following:
The dissent was very weak. It mostly hinges on the word "State." Judge Henderson is forgetting her Blackthorn, who deals with this word in several ways. Essentially, her dissent was trashed from 250 years in the past.
Next, the ruling, while a breakthrough as far as Federal Courts go, was actually very narrow. It tossed out the laws that prevented honest citizens from owning and using small arms (particularly handguns) for self defense. The ruling did not strike down the registration laws. In effect, it opened the registration.
The city is essentially been hoisted upon its own petard. It can let the ruling stand (which makes the most sense, from a political stance) or it can petition for a stay while it petitions the Circuit en banc. - forced, that is, by the anti-gun lobby.
This is risky, because Circuit Courts, especially the D.C. Circuit rarely convene en banc except to correct a mistaken panel. Judge Silberman is a senior Judge on the Circuit and I seriously doubt that he is out of line with his thinking.
If the Circuit grants an en banc hearing, I strongly suspect that it will uphold the panels decision. In which case, the City will appeal to the SCOTUS.
If the full Circuit reverses the panel, then Parker, et al will appeal to the SCOTUS.
Whichever way it goes, SCOTUS will get to decide the issue.
Of course, now the question is: will they dodge the issue again or will they grant cert? For those that don't know, it takes 4 Justices on the court to grant cert. Even though this decision is very narrow, it's a political hot potato. And make no mistake, the SCOTUS is as political as it gets.
Now here's the interesting part: The majorities reasoning (in reaching the decision) is not dicta, as Henderson claims. It is a necessary part of the decision itself. As such, I have the distinct feeling that the decision was written, not for the Circuit, but for the SCOTUS itself. It is an excellent brief for granting cert. It lays out in almost "irritating" detail the reasoning behind the decision. It is, in my opinion, the most succinct and complete treatise on what the 2A means. It never discusses the scope of the second beyond what was necessary to reach the decision (which is why it is not dicta). The research and citations are impeccable.
In short, it is as if Silberman tailored this decision just for the SCOTUS. The Justices would really have to weave from thin air, in order to reverse this decision (note: we've seen them do this before - so don't hold your breath), should they grant cert.