The only saving grace is the very well written majority opinion arguing that McDonald and Heller ruled that there is a right to bear outside of the home, and the 9th has already ruled that concealed carry is not constitutionally protected in Peruda II. So the only alternative available is to permit open carry outside of the home to all who are not prohibited persons.
Therefore an en banc panel will either have to rule that SCOTUS did not say in McDonald and Heller that to bear outside of the home is a protected right, or else uphold the ruling.
If they do uphold the rule, there is no way that the gun-grabbers will allow Hawaii to push this to the Supreme Court. Imagine the chaos that would occur in the governments of New York, New Jersey, etc., if “shall issue open carry” is the law if the land!
I understand your logic and it would make sense except for ... liberals who don’t use a whole lot of logic in my opinion. Since they are lead by ideology and emotion, logical thinking is far from them.
Yes, the majority opinion is very well done.
But that does not stop an en banc Ninth Circuit from using sophistry to reverse them.
My prediction is they will write that Heller and McDonald do not apply outside the home. They will do this simply to restrict Second Amendment rights as much as they think they can get away with.
If I recall correctly Peruda II basically said, "you can either deny concealed carry or you can deny open carry, but not both".
The Appeals court in the case, noted that no one has been issued a concealed carry permit in Hawaii for decades, thus the right is essentially completely denied.