The Supreme Court's decisions in Heller and McDonald affirmed an individual right to keep and bear arms. However, those cases only addressed a central issue of keeping guns in the home. Though the Court found the right to self-defense to be "most acute" there, in no way did either decision imply that it ended at the doorstep.
Yet Maryland, New York, New Jersey, and Illinois have all claimed that their arbitrary and burdensome systems of issuing (or rather, refusing to issue) permits to carry a firearm outside the home somehow pass constitutional muster. So, we've brought lawsuits. We won in the 7th Circuit, and we won in the 4th Circuit. New York? Not so well.
Last November, the 2nd Circuit ruled that,
Plaintiffs misconstrue the character and scope of the Second Amendment. States have long chosen to regulate the right to bear arms because of the risks posed by its exercise. As Plaintiffs admit and Heller strongly suggests, the state may ban firearm possession in sensitive places, presumably on the ground that it is too dangerous to permit the possession of firearms in those locations. (…) Thus, as the Supreme Court has implicitly recognized, regulating firearms because of the dangers posed by exercising the right is entirely consistent with the Second Amendment. (…) We are also not convinced that the state may not limit the right to bear arms to those showing a “special need for self-protection.”
The root of all three challenges is the constitutionality of "good cause" requirements for the exercise of a right. No other enumerated right requires such a showing.
Though we couldn't get Woollard heard before the Supreme Court last session, the ensuing split between Circuit courts begs resolution by them. Alan Gura has chosen Kachalsky to be the case to argue.