Dissent (singular) by Thomas, joined by Gorsuch (looks like he came through as hoped for by firearms civil rights advocates... thank you president Trump!). The "bad news" re the dissent is that only two justices signed on... meaning Alito, Roberts, and Kennedy (the supposedly potential "conservative" votes) weren't interested enough to dissent from the denial and don't support Thomas's dissenting view.
https://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/062617zor_8759.pdfA few quotes:
[How the case is identical in basic question to Hawaii]
"Petitioners are residents of San Diego County (plus an association with numerous county residents as members) who are unable to obtain a license for concealed carry due to the county’s policy and, because the State generally bans open carry, are thus unable to bear firearms in public in any manner." p. 2
[Addressing the Ninth en banc decision as "indefensible" and suggesting that there may have "discussion" that SCOTUS needs to wait for another "more appropriate" case...]
"We should have granted certiorari in this case. The approach taken by the en banc court is indefensible, and the petition raises important questions that this Court should address. I see no reason to await another case." p. 3
[Another similarity to the Hawaii circumstance]
"As the Ninth Circuit panel pointed out, “[petitioners] argue that the San Diego County policy in light of the California licensing scheme as a whole violates the Second Amendment because it precludes a responsible, law-abiding citizen from carrying a weapon in public for the purpose of lawful self-defense
in any manner.”" p. 4
[On the meaning of "bear arms" in the Constitution... to those who argue like Hawaii that there is no right to bear outside the home in a public place.]
"I find it extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen." p. 5
[On the disparity of SCOTUS ranking other rights as far more "important" that other rights (the Second).]
"The Constitution does not rank certain rights above others, and I do not think this Court should impose such a hierarchy by selectively enforcing its pre ferred rights. Id., at (slip op., at 1) (“Second Amend ment rights are no less protected by our Constitution than other rights enumerated in that document”). The Court has not heard argument in a Second Amendment case in over seven years—since March 2, 2010, in McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742. Since that time, we have heard argument in, for example, roughly 35 cases where the question presented turned on the meaning of the First Amendment and 25 cases that turned on the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. This discrepancy is inexcusable, especially given how much less developed our jurispru dence is with respect to the Second Amendment as com pared to the First and Fourth Amendments." p. 7
[Conclusion]
"For those of us who work in marbled halls, guarded constantly by a vigilant and dedicated police force, the guarantees of the Second Amendment might seem anti quated and superfluous. But the Framers made a clear choice: They reserved to all Americans the right to bear arms for self-defense. I do not think we should stand by idly while a State denies its citizens that right, particularly when their very lives may depend on it." p. 8