Of course not. The Court said, explicitly, that all those cases, including Nunn and Chandler, were cited to show that (Heller, pg 38):
...Many early 19th-century state cases indicated that the Second Amendment right to bear arms was an individual right unconnected to militia service, though subject to certain restrictions....
Since 1891 the California Supreme Court has held that concealed carry can be prohibited. Since 1924 the California courts have relied on a California Supreme Court decision which cited Nunn v. State (which was also cited in Heller and McDonald) to uphold convictions for concealed carry. The California Supreme Court held that individuals have the right to openly carry firearms (except for the defendant because he wasn't born in the United States) but even that prohibition extended only to handguns. However, he was free to openly carry a loaded long gun for self-defense. California statutes regulating concealed carry go back to the first legislative acts of 1853.
The California Supreme Court in 1924 (and up until Heller) explicitly stated that the Second Amendment was not an individual right unconnected to the Militia and added that the Second Amendment applied only to the Federal Government.
Of course had you bothered to read either of Scalia's texts I recommended in my previous post you would not have drawn the incorrect inference regarding Nunn and Chandler that you did.
Should you ever bother to read them you will find that Scalia does not believe that the Bill of Rights applied to the states in 1791. According to Scalia, the portions of the Bill of Rights which are incorporated to the states are colored by what the People believed those rights meant when the 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868.
Many states, including California, had prohibitions on the carry of concealed weapons when the 14th Amendment was adopted.
Even St. Gura refers to prohibitions on concealed carry as "presumptively lawful."
There are arguments that could be made under the 14th Amendment in a Second Amendment context to obtain concealed carry but neither the NRA/CRPA nor the SAF/CalGuns are making them. There are also Second Amendment arguments to greatly expand where and when one can carry concealed even in highly restrictive states like California and Illinois which Scalia would embrace. But once again, the so called gun rights groups aren't making them.
Gura is going to have to stand before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals and win a Facial challenge to California's concealed carry laws which will lose. According to his disciples that is his strategy.
The NRA will stand before the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals where Chuck Michel will have to have a pretty good answer as to where is his case or controversy and hope that the 9th gives him a do over in the District Court?