I don't think this case is asking it, but the fundamental question in my mind is: Why do I even need a permit to carry? How can I exercise my right if I have to ask the nanny state for permission first?
The anti-gunners will answer that "Reasonable regulation, blah, blah, blah ... reasons." This has been argued in the supreme courts of several states. More than one of them (such as Ohio, and either Idaho or Utah) have ruled that "regulate" does not equate to "prohibit." So, since their state constitutions explicitly provide that the citizens have a right to carry, all the state can do is regulate the mode of carry. In other words, "If you want permits to carry concealed, then open carry doesn't need a permit. If you want permits for open carry, then concealed carry can't require a permit."
That's how Ohio got concealed carry permits not too many years ago. Someone got a ruling from the state supreme court that said just that. Ohio law at the time prohibited concealed carry ... so people started open carrying everywhere they went. The bliss ninnies got a severe case of the vapors when they saw GUNZ!, so the legislature enacted a law providing for concealed carry permits. Tranquility was restored, and the promise of the streets running red with blood went unfulfilled.