This could be it guys.  New Jersey Cert petition filed yesterday with the Supreme Court.  Note this is not a concealed carry case. In NJ a permit allows you to open or concealed carry. And all that is being challenged is the justifiable need requirement part of the law.

https://www.scribd.com/document/396129202/Rogers-v-Grewal-Nj-Rtc-Cert?fbclid=IwAR3j5srgOQJvpzJK8Si6JOXECgvbyrlRdPbi5p2LMJE_33S8ZdlS0rAYuco

Read through much of it... I especially enjoyed the quote on page 31, “It is hard to conceive a task more appropriate for federal courts than to protect civil rights guaranteed by the Constitution against invasion by the states.”
Here's to hoping SCOTUS takes this head-on!

The cert petition argues that states can ban Open Carry in favor of concealed carry.  The cert petition is limited to handguns.  Not just handguns, but handguns which are ordinarily and commonly carried concealed.  The petition argues that Heller's citations to Reid, Nunn, and Chandler, where Heller said that Open Carry is the right guaranteed by the Constitution and that the 19th-century prohibitions on concealed carry do not infringe on the Second Amendment right actually mean the exact opposite of what the Heller decision said.

So how does this argument differ from Alan Gura's cert-stage briefs in Drake v. Filko?  Gura told the court that because New Jersey handgun carry permits allow one to carry handguns openly or concealed, the court need not consider the "confusing" question regarding the manner of carrying.

Cert denied.

- Justice Scalia saying that prohibitions on concealed carry are constitutional.
www.c-span.org/video/?c4748320/concealed-carry-amendment - Justice Kavanaugh saying that prohibitions on concealed carry are constitutional.

For those who bother to read beyond the questions presented, the Rogers' petition argues not only for concealed carry but argues that states can ban Open Carry in favor of concealed carry, and cites that as a holding of the Heller court saying, "Indeed, when these state laws restricted both forms of carrying, they were struck down. In a case that Heller described as “perfectly captur[ing]” the correct approach to the Second Amendment, 554 U.S. at 612, the Georgia Supreme
Court invalidated such a law as “in conflict with the Constitution, and void.” Nunn v. State, 1 Ga. 243, 251 (1846)" Rogers' cert petition at 26.

Contrary to what the cert petition argues, prohibitions on concealed carry were not upheld because Open Carry was legal.  Here is what the Nunn decision said about concealed carry, ""The question recurs, does the act "to suppress the evil practice of carrying weapons secretly," trench upon the constitutional rights of the citizen? We think not."  The Heller decision then cited State v. Chandler which "Likewise" held that concealed carry is not a right, "Likewise, in State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann. 489, 490 (1850), the Louisiana Supreme Court held that citizens had a right to carry arms openly: "This is the right guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, and which is calculated to incite men to a manly and noble defence of themselves, if necessary, and of their country, without any tendency to secret advantages and unmanly assassinations.""

Note that prohibitions on concealed carry being constitutional appears first in Heller's non-exhaustive list of permissible regulations in Section III of the decision, before prohibitions on felons and the mentally ill from possessing firearms.

As I said, cert denied.

Charles, Charles, Charles... No amount (as you well know) of written quotes and/or audio and video of Justices quoting (their own) SCOTUS decisions will EVER deter these people from insisting that the courts must recognize "the right" to concealed carry. I might as well go out onto my property and try to convince the feral pigs to quit tearing up the place. Ain't    gonna    happen. But you knew that. And I know that. Still, I appreciate you providing the information for those who are interested enough to actually read (and listen) about the actual facts of the judicial history as opposed to some fabricated story of what the judicial history should have been or "really" meant (the opposite of what it clearly says).

I will add the proviso, that despite the statements of Justices like currently sitting Kavanaugh re stare decisis, that it is theoretically possible for 5 Justices to decide to abandon that policy and overrule the precedent cases and make pretty much any pronouncement they like about the scope and specificity of the rights encompassed by the Second Amendment. But I wouldn't bet on that. I guess some people want "to keep hope alive".