I don’t see the “latitude” for licensing owners which you mention. “...laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms....” would mean that the city can regulate gun shops.
Also, “...schools and government buildings..” implies PUBLIC buildings. The Verizon Center is private property.
Your mention of the NBA’a collective bargaining agreement is totally irrelevent to the “criminal charges” aspect of the case. In fact, I had already stated my opinion on THAT issue when I wrote: “As for the league/team rules/punishment, IF there is a “no-gun” clause in his team/NBA contract, or if the league or the team have previously established “no-gun” rules for the locker-room(s), then he should just face his team/NBA punishment like a man.”
You understand that in the interest of brevity, I only excerpted just a portion of the entire decision, right? The whole decision may be found here.
Heller's entire argument centered around the fact that licensing wasn't unconstitutional per se, just that the application of the licensing requirements as practiced by the District of Columbia, were unconstitutional. The Supremes agreed with that stipulation and argument.
I have read not a single interpretation of the decision, especially when weighing the citations that the Supremes used to support their decision, that indicates that Heller places any substantive limitations on the District's ability to limit or regulate where weapons may be taken or carried outside the citizen's private residence.
You have to read the entire decision, and its referenced citations to have a complete understanding of the ruling.
"Your mention of the NBA’a collective bargaining agreement is totally irrelevent to the “criminal charges” aspect of the case."
I don't believe I mentioned any relevance to the CBA and possible criminal charges.