There's reason for cautious optimism. Here's the actual paragraph from Parker:
"We also note that at least three current members (and one former member) of the Supreme Court have read "bear Arms" in the Second Amendment to have meaning beyond mere soldiering: "Surely a most familiar meaning [of 'carries a firearm'] is, as the Constitution's Second Amendment ('keepand bear Arms') and Black's Law Dictionary . . . indicate: 'wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person." Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125, 143 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting, joined by Rehnquist, C.J., Scalia, J.,and Souter, J.) (emphasis in original). Based on the foregoing, we think the operative clause includes a private meaning for"bear Arms."
Do you now think Ginsburg and Souter will contradict themselves?
Ginsberg at least, did so in Bush V. Gore on a matter she'd ruled with the unanimous majority just weeks before.
Souter, at least, is open to lobbying from the left and is concerned more with the authority of the court than with the Constitution.