The first circuit just upheld Mass. carry law but it repeated distinguished Hawaii law and Young.

The First Circuit found “[n]or do the Boston and Brookline policies result in a total ban on the right to public carriage of firearms. In this respect, the policies coalesce with the Massachusetts statute to form a regime that is markedly less restrictive than the regimes found unconstitutional by the Seventh and Ninth Circuits. The Illinois ban on public carriage struck down by the Seventh Circuit did not give the slightest recognition to the heightened need of some individuals to arm themselves for self-protection, see Moore, 702 F.3d at 940 (noting that "[n]ot even Massachusetts has so flat a ban as Illinois"), and the Hawaii law struck down by the Ninth Circuit created a regime under which not a single unrestricted license for public carriage had ever been issued, see Young, 896 F.3d at 1071 n.21. The Ninth Circuit took pains to distinguish the Hawaii law from laws in which the "good cause" standard "did not disguise an effective ban on the public carry of firearms." Id. at 1072.
The Massachusetts regime is more akin to those regimes upheld in the Second, Third, and Fourth Circuits. See Drake, 724 F.3d at 428-29, 439-40; Woollard, 712 F.3d at 868-70, 882; Kachalsky, 701 F.3d at 85-87, 101. Those regimes — like the regime at issue here — "provided for administrative or judicial review of any license denial, . . . a safeguard conspicuously absent from Hawaii's laws."”Gould v. Morgan, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 31129, *32-33 (footnotes omitted).


 Here is the opinion


https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/ca1/17-2202/17-2202-2018-11-02.html

The more relevant quote is the holding of the court:

"To sum up, we hold that the core right protected by the Second Amendment is — as Heller described it — "the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth and home." 554 U.S. at 635. Public carriage of firearms for self-defense falls outside the perimeter of this core right."

The 1st circuit now adds to the SCOTUS Rule 10 split.  Notably, there has been only one other SCOTUS Rule 10 court which has limited the "core right" to the home:

"If the Supreme Court, in this dicta, meant its holding to extend beyond home possession, it will need to say so more plainly."  Williams v. State, 10 A. 3d 1167 - Md: Court of Appeals (2011) at 1177. (The Court of Appeals of Maryland is the supreme court of the U.S. state of Maryland.)

NEW YORK STATE RIFLE & PISTOL ASSOCIATION, Inc., et al., v. City of New York, New York, et al may get tossed for lack of a SCOTUS Rule 10 split, the same cannot be said of Gould v. Morgan.

Assuming the cert petition even argues that there is a split.  The NRA lawyer in Norman v. Florida, despite all of the existing splits, never even mentioned the word "split" in his cert petition.