The claim in that article doesn't even make sense:
Two federal appeals courts last week reviewed the legality behind concealed carry laws. In Denver, the court decided that concealed-carry firearms aren’t protected by the Second Amendment. A thousand miles away in Chicago, the court reached a different decision. It declined to reconsider a ruling that found that state’s ban on concealed carry unconstitutional.
These two courts aren’t the first to mull this issue. A New York federal appeals court last November upheld a state law that required concealed-carry applicants to prove “proper cause” to obtain concealed-carry licenses. Looking ahead, appeals courts in California and Virginia are set to review the issue.
Virginia is not a "may issue" state, one does not have to show any reason why they should be granted a CHP. It makes no sense that this issue would be up for review in Virginia.
The ruling in Denver was puzzling, so I hunted down the actual opinion. Denver has a city ordinance against open carry without a concealed permit - open carry without a permit is apparently legal everywhere else in Colorado. The case at hand specifically did not address the Denver ordinance, but simply ruled that government regulation of concealed carry is legal. Apparently the plaintiff went out of his way to emphasize that he was not contesting the Denver ordinance, which seems pretty dumb to me, as it was even noted in the case opinion that the confluence of the two laws were what left him unarmed in Denver, but he insisted on only fighting the non-resident prohibition on concealed permits. I suspect this case will end up going higher and may fall in with other cases that are eventually going to decide that carrying in some form outside the home is a protected right. Have to wait and see on how that turns out.