Unless I'm wrong, Young V Hawaii is about open carry.
Probably if open carry which is protected got the go ahead, it would make concealed
carry permits easier to get.
Open carry scares people for some reason.
If I read it right, the case was about carrying outside the home, which the local courts said was not being violated based on Heller which said you have a right to defend yourself at home, but concealed carry in public was not a right.
On appeal in the Young case, the appellate court ruled that open carry IS a right based on their historical analysis. They also said the state's "reason" scheme eviscerated the 2A due to the words "bear arms". They again looked at historical cases and concluded OPEN CARRY of a loaded gun in public for protection is, in fact, a right.
The issue now becomes Hawaii's carry licensing process. The state denies all CC applications and has no open carry application process. That's a defacto ban on ALL applicants seeking to "bear arms." The court says the state can ban CC, but it must allow OC as an alternative.
Since HI County, and the state, have created a catch-22 (We don't issue concealed carry licenses because we don't have to, and we have no applications available for open carry), the appellate reversed the lower courts' decision. Even though the issue HINGES on whether HI is failing to offer open carry licenses, it's really more about them offering concealed carry with open carry not being an option and then denying CC.
Throughout the history of gun laws, courts have applied "intermediate scrutiny" as the appropriate way to analyze gun laws. The new SCOTUS ruling tore that to shreds, stating that a Constitutionally protected right should never be subject to intermediate scrutiny:
The Supreme Court has clarified though in its decision in D.C. v. Heller, and in NYSRPA v. Bruen,
the Court identified text as informed by history, and tradition as the correct basis of Judicial review.
Means and scrutiny are not appropriate.
Intermediate scrutiny, in U.S. constitutional law, is the second level of deciding issues using judicial review. The other levels are typically referred to as rational basis review (least rigorous) and strict scrutiny (most rigorous).
In order to overcome the intermediate scrutiny test, it must be shown that the law or policy being challenged furthers an important government interest by means that are substantially related to that interest.[1][2]
Makes sense, because the government should not be allowed to ignore protected rights meant to protect the nation and individuals against tyranny by claiming the law "furthers an important government interest ." The interests of the government come second to the protected rights of the individual.
https://harvardlawreview.org/2019/05/young-v-hawaii/