Here in the 9th Circuit and in California, unpublished opinions can only be cited before the US Supreme Court. Perhaps your state and Federal Circuit is different, I can't say.
Anyone who thinks Scalia is going to reverse what he said about concealed carry should read a couple of his books: "Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts
" and "A Matter of Interpretation: Federal Courts and the Law.
Or one can read the "condensed version" by reading the Heller decision where Scalia tap danced around United States v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois and United States v. Miller.
1868 is the relevant year for Scalia and there was nothing in the McDonald decision written by Alito or in the concurrences by Scalia and Thomas which gave the slightest hint that what the court said in Heller about concealed carry was said in jest.
So where are the 5 votes going to come from to give you "shall issue" concealed carry assuming the court even grants cert? The Supreme Court has had ample opportunity to hear a concealed carry case in the four years since Heller and has denied cert in every case.
Which brings us full circle. Which case is more likely to win? Mine, which argues that the Supreme Court meant exactly what it said or the NRA/SAF cases which argue that the Heller Court was just joshing everyone when it said:
"Likewise, in State v. Chandler, 5La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: “This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.”"