I based the conclusion on this statement, taken from your link:
This case turns on the first constitutional standing element: whether Hickman has shown injury to an interest protected by the Second Amendment. We note at the outset that no individual has ever succeeded in demonstrating such injury in federal court.
This, to me reads that this methodology has never worked in any federal court. If I have misread the statement, or if it is not a factual statement, then I will reconsider. At present I do not see where where I have agreed with the opinion of the court in any way.
You haven't read their conclusion.