One step at a time. Next step is challenging "may issue".
The right to bear as distinct from the right to keep arms is unlikely to refer to the home. To speak of bearing arms within ones home would at all times have been an awkward usage. A right to bear arms thus implies a right to carry a loaded gun outside the home.
Twenty-first century Illinois has no hostile Indians. But a Chicagoan is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower.
To confine the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right of self-defense described in Heller and McDonald. It is not a property righta right to kill a houseguest who in a fit of aesthetic fury tries to slash your copy of Norman Rockwells painting Santa with Elves. That is not self-defense, and this case like Heller and McDonald is just about self-defense.
Moreover, there is no reason to expect Illinois to impose minimal permit restrictions on carriage of guns outside the home, for obviously this is not a state that has a strong pro-gun culture, unlike the states that began allowing concealed carriage before Heller and MacDonald enlarged the scope of Second Amendment rights.
A person who carries a gun in public but is not well trained in the use of firearms is a menace to himself and others.