Yes, I think this means a CCW issued in one state must be accepted by another.
Who wants to be the guinea pig?
Sadly, untrue, at least as I read it. Still, it's a win. Wish they'd gone further, but the court is not really interested in clarifying things. The multiple mention given to 'dangerous and unusual weapons will likely be used as a loophole for a lot of crap. I don't recall the opinion itself talking specifically about other state 'licensing' requirements that are 'non-discriminatory', but one of he concurrences did specifically say that such things are not touched by the opinion.
I got the impression that Thomas has been waiting a while to write this opinion. However, decisions are consensus documents, and he likely couldn't get enough on board to be really sweeping in language. He did have some really strong quotes in it though, such as "In keeping with Heller, we hold that when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct."