Very unlikely that it is heard en banc any time soon. If heard again, likely to be by a 3 judge panel. The acutall next step will be if that state can get a judge to rule that this on is put on hold in July.
Even if this is thrown out by a panel or en banc of the 9th, in doing so they'd have to rule that an AR-15 isn't a 'weapon of war'.
The judge here ruled directly that the state law is unconstitutional because of an AR-15 being protected for one's self defense under Heller and it is protected for one to own for one's militia readiness under Miller(the 1939 sawed off shotgun case).
Given there are both Federal and state level militia obligations of all males and the SC having stated that niether the Fed's nor the state can say what the other can have in the way of arms finally there is a real squeeze being put on the courts to allow bans.
If the court now rules that an AR-15 isn't suitable for war, they have also ruled that an AR-15 is no more dangerous than any other firearm. Therefore a state can't ban them.
The judge really did his homework and put a lot thought into how to keep this decision intact. Or create a big can of worms for those interested in throwing it out.
Also, once the smoke clears the only thing a state will be able to do is apply a ban on womenfolk having them. No state is going to do that.