The motion for summary judgment was entered in August and oral argument scheduled for late January. SAF's site doesn't have any updates. Googling didn't turn up anything, how did that go?
This is really the next big one boys. If Palmer gets a carry requirement for DC, either open or concealed, under the dicta in Heller then Chicago (and Illinois proper) will be SOL. I can't see the ruling taking too much longer (if at all) after the McDonald announcement (June) to come out. Chicago will then not be able to simply allow possession in the home, they are going to have to allow for carry at the same time. The way Gura worded Palmer, they may have to allow for non-residents to do so as well.
The Calguns lawsuit that should make "discretionary" issue unlawful in California (under equal protection) is waiting on the incorporation ruling in McDonald. If/when it succeeds then the other "may-issue" states will be on notice, that will then likely lead to mandatory "shall-issue" of whatever form of carry a state chooses. That means Chicago will have to think hard about whether it wants another court fight while setting up its carry system. Too restrictive and they will be right back in court.
The supposition, as I understand it, is that most anti-gunners would prefer licensed concealed carry for the long term if they are going to allow one or the other. They are, in some cases, pushing open carry over concealed for their own purposes to rile up the undecided with "scary" visible guns, but that's simply to get states to ban carry entirely. Once a carry ban is off the table I think they'll want to avoid the "normalization" that the OC folks are right* would eventually occur.
Anyway, so what's up with Palmer?
*Note that may still be a risky strategy until a carry ban is off the table, a few bad incidents could provoke a ban prior to normalization, which is a longer-term process, occuring.
