You clearly do not understand standing. "In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues." quoting SCOTUS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standing_(law)
The 9CA resolved the case on the merits. They would have clearly stated that the plaintiffs had no standing if that were an issue. They made no mention of standing. They clearly state "We hold that the Second Amendment does not preserve or protect a right of a member of the general public to carry concealed firearms in public."
I guess if you want your case concluded at the circuit court level, you could think like that, but that's not very wise. The final disposition of a case happens at the US Supreme Court and if there isn't a personal or property right damage, they don't take the case. Justice Brandeis clearly explains that in Ashwander v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 297 U.S. 288 (1936). And exactly why they didn't take the Peruta case, as there was no damaged party to a personal right, due to there being no right to carry concealed firearms.
The plaintiffs had standing because they were prevented from any kind of carry by CA law. Essentially the same reasons in this case. The 9CA sidestepped the issue by focusing just on the concealed carry aspect of the case and ignored the fact that CA prohibits open carry..
That assessment is incorrect, as you have overlooked the fact that plaintiffs sought a concealed carry permit in their initial complaint. They did not seek to carry in ANY other manor. The 9th didn't have to address any other issue before them, other than the challenged concealed carry aspect of the case. The 9th actually explains that reasoning in their, correct decision.
I believe the reason that SCOTUS did not take Peruta or Rogers had to do with the fact that they did not really put the historical prohibitions into context. SCOTUS did not really know how to address it so it decided to wait for a better case to put the historical prohibitions into context. While I don't think that this case presented the appropriate arguments, the dissent in Young does. We will see how this case gets resolved.
The one thing that is clear is that the plaintiff in this case and Peruta did have standing to bring the case.
What you believe is in error, and completely hypothetical, as there is no right to carry concealed firearms. Evidenced by Justice Scalia indicating that belief when he mentions a majority of 19th century courts ruling that the carrying concealed weapons can be prohibited under the 2nd Amendment in DC v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008). Evidenced by the US Supreme court stating that there is no right to carry concealed firearms in Robertson v Baldwin 165 U.S. 275 (1897). Also, since a right can not be licensed, MURDOCK v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105 (1943), asking for a license in the exercise of a right, clearly shows the court, that a plaintiff not challenging the license requirement first, but instead seeks to obtain a license, clearly doesn't have a damage concerning a personal right.