limiting the issue to whether the state’s denial of the individuals’ applications to carry a gun outside the home for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.
I don't like that the court appears to be addressing the legitimacy of the State acting as an impediment to the carrying of a firearm outside the home for self-defense.
It's not talking about concealed vs open carry, or shall issue vs may issue. It's just addressing the very meat of the matter, of keeping a firearm in one's general possession in order to fend off a violent ne'er do well while going about daily tasks.
The fact that the 2A has the word "State" in it at all leads me to the most dismal of conclusions for a 21st century SCOTUS. Grammar and sentence structure of the controversial article be damned ("A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"), every one of them is an interpretive dancer when it comes to authoritarianism and they love to circle jerk around "regulated" and "Militia" and "State" while completely ignoring "People," "keep," "bear," and "shall not be infringed."
About the only coherent debate that could actually be had in regards to the 2A is the scope of the word "arms." Did its colloquial usage at that time include artillery or other more advanced forms of crew served and platformed weaponry, or not? Is a howitzer or a puckle gun an "arm?"
Everything else is simple and settled by the plain sentence structure. Circle jerking interpretive dancers be damned.