Yet another poor argument made by Clement in this case. He also failed to directly answer the narrowed question accepted by the court.
Courts generally don't answer questions that were not raised. If anyone thought that the applicability of the 2A outside the home was an issue, they should have been raised. This issue was not raise so it is not relevant to the SCOTUS decision in Caetano.
I will say that Clement's brief spends almost all of its time explaining bearing arms generally outside the home. I did not see much specifically explaining the "need" standard, which isn't permissible whether it be for abortion or for protest permits. I don't feel they have to really go overboard with the open v. concealed argument since NY has implicitly conceded this but the standard of issuance is indeed the heart of the disagreement between the parties and one could make the argument that the re-written question also points in this direction.