Kavanaugh was no friend to us...

It depends upon who you mean by "us."  For the of us fighting to vindicate the Second Amendment, Justice Kavanaugh wrote some very encouraging words in his concurrence:

"I also agree with JUSTICE ALITO’s general analysis of Heller and McDonald. Post, at 25; see District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008); McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010); Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F. 3d 1244 (CADC 2011) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting). And I share JUSTICE ALITO’s concern that some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald. The Court should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court."

It depends upon who you mean by "us."  For the of us fighting to vindicate the Second Amendment, Justice Kavanaugh wrote some very encouraging words in his concurrence:

"I also agree with JUSTICE ALITO’s general analysis of Heller and McDonald. Post, at 25; see District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008); McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010); Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F. 3d 1244 (CADC 2011) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting). And I share JUSTICE ALITO’s concern that some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald. The Court should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court."

"...some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald. The Court should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court."

I don't find the use of the words "some", "may", and "perhaps" to be a very forceful statement. While I suspect, based upon his past decisions on these issues, that Kavanaugh will likely side with "us", this statement of his doesn't really lead me to believe he's all that gung-ho to get this done, like, for instance, Thomas is.

"I also agree with JUSTICE ALITO’s general analysis of Heller and McDonald. Post, at 25; see District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570 (2008); McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742 (2010); Heller v. District of Columbia, 670 F. 3d 1244 (CADC 2011) (Kavanaugh, J., dissenting). And I share JUSTICE ALITO’s concern that some the federal and state courts may are not be properly applying Heller and McDonald. The Court should must address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court."

There I fixed it for him. Hope Kavanaugh will rewrite now

"...some federal and state courts may not be properly applying Heller and McDonald. The Court should address that issue soon, perhaps in one of the several Second Amendment cases with petitions for certiorari now pending before the Court."

I don't find the use of the words "some", "may", and "perhaps" to be a very forceful statement. While I suspect, based upon his past decisions on these issues, that Kavanaugh will likely side with "us", this statement of his doesn't really lead me to believe he's all that gung-ho to get this done, like, for instance, Thomas is.

Some Federal and state courts have been properly applying Heller and McDonald, others have not.  Now that SCOTUS has allowed the government to moot cases by changing the law after SCOTUS has granted cert then there is little incentive to grant cert in a case that can be mooted simply by the government issuing the plaintiffs a permit, or changing a rule, or law. Perhaps one of the pending cert petitions is one that can't be easily mooted.  Perhaps not.

Wasn't Kav asked specifically about Heller and he said it's the law of the land or something during his confirmation hearing?

According to this story from Reuters (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-guns-hawaii/unlikely-pair-could-usher-gun-rights-case-to-u-s-supreme-court-idUSKBN1KT13B), Mr. Young was 68 last August at the time the story was published (that means he was awfully young when in Vietnam).

My suggestion is that the next plaintiff in a carry case, at least in Hawaii and the consequent Ninth Circuit, be a fetus. Have the pregnant woman go in and say that the fetus has told her it wants to have a carry license waiting when it emerges and has given the mother power of attorney to submit an application to be valid from the date of birth. Baby comes out, immediately starts crying because license has been denied, thus making it defenseless against some clown holding it upside down and spanking it. I figure that way, even with all the delay shenanigans at every level we'd have a chance of someone taking the litigation all the way to SCOTUS and getting a decision while the person was still alive and thus the case not mooted by plainiff death. Twins would be even better.

The Dems would probably force the woman to abort ( or terminate after birth-no medical attention) at the last minute to kill the case.

Wasn't Kav asked specifically about Heller and he said it's the law of the land or something during his confirmation hearing?

Kavanaugh said in his confirmation hearing that the Heller decision said that concealed carry is not a right and that, likewise (as per Heller), the 2A does not protect the right to own a machinegun. He wrote an extensive dissent in Heller II.  We did not know until his concurrence in NYSRPA v. NYC whether he agreed with the 2A right defined in Heller or, like Sotomayor, he was being disingenuous. 

Oral argument date set...

https://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/ninth-circuit-sets-the-date-to-hear-young-v-hawaii-arguments/?fbclid=IwAR2Z0i3-iB4xcNB3g5DQ1-GERgnm4uQlOWvhE1uhowR1pQUDgCVmRxFVfPg

https://michellawyers.com/young-v-hawaii/


Plaintiff Brief

https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/2020-06-04-Appellants-Supp-Brief.pdf
Amicus Briefs In Support of Appellant Young

• Hawaii Rifle Association; California Rifle & Pistol Association, Incorporated; and Gun Owners of California
  
• New Civil Liberties Alliance
  
• THE STATES OF LOUISIANA, ALABAMA, ARIZONA, ARKANSAS, GEORGIA, IDAHO, INDIANA, KANSAS, KENTUCKY, MISSISSIPPI, MONTANA, NEBRASKA, NORTH DAKOTA, OHIO, OKLAHOMA, SOUTH CAROLINA, SOUTH DAKOTA, TEXAS. UTAH, WEST VIRGINIA IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT.
  
• National Rifle Association of America
  
• Professors of Second Amendment Law, Firearms Policy Coalition, Firearms Policy Foundation, Cato Institute, Madison Society Foundation, California Gun Rights Foundation, Second Amendment Foundation, and Independence Institute
  
• Hawaii Firearms Coalition
  

https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/2020-06-04-En-Banc-Brief-of-Defendants-Appellees.pdf

Amicus Briefs In Support of Appellee Hawaii

• Neal Goldfarb
  
• City and County of Honolulu, County of Kauai, and County of Maui in Support of Defendants-Appellees.
  
• Corpus Linguistics Professors and Experts as Amici Curiae Supporting Appellees.
  
• States of New Jersey, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Virginia, and the District of Columbia
  
• SOCIAL SCIENTISTS AND PUBLIC HEALTH RESEARCHERS
  
• State of California
  
• Everytown for Gun Safety
  
• Prosecutors Against Gun Violence
  
• Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence
  

From Mr. Young's en banc brief, "If Defendants rely on the concealed carry permit as an alternative to open carry, then that concealed carry permit process must comply with Young’s due process rights."

The Defendants did not rely on concealed carry as an alternative.

Given the three-judge panel decision in conjunction with the Appellants' Opening Brief, plus the en banc petition, the only way that concealed carry could have been relevant to the en banc court depended on Mr. Young filing an en banc petition seeking concealed carry.  He didn't.

And even if he had, en banc panels are reluctant to overturn prior en banc panel decisions unless the prior precedent prevents them from adopting a legal rule in the case.  The prior en banc precedent is, of course, Peruta v. San Diego.