Just listened to the whole session. Nice to have such material on-line.
Three key issues arise.
First, the state definition of "concealed carry" (which is prohibited) includes having a non-visible firearm "within reach". Perversely, this prohibits keeping a loaded firearm in a nearby drawer, such as in a business or bedroom. This takes the "carry" part of "concealed carry" to absurd lengths.
Second, prohibited "concealed carry" includes a firearm "within reach" within a vehicle. Perversely, this prohibits having the firearm in plain view, such as on the passenger seat. This takes the "concealed" part of "concealed carry" to absurd lengths.
These two points are preposterous and should obviously be overturned. There is no justification for them, as they apply meaning to terms with opposing definitions ("sitting in a drawer" cannot conceivably mean "carry", and "plainly visible" cannot conceivably mean "concealed").
The third point is more difficult. The state technically permits open carry, but surely one would hassled by police and quite possibly charged with something (disturbing the peace, threatening, etc.) for even the most innocent of open carry. The chilling effect is severe, yet legally ignorable. More seriously, concealed carry is explicitly not a right (may be declared legal, but is not a right) in the state constitution.
A key weak point in the pro-gun argument developed when the attorney admitted that a state could explicitly prohibit carry in a variety of locations (schools, banks, courthouses, etc.) and by a variety of people (minors, felons) - but did not give any legal justification for such targeted prohibitions in the face of the state constitution.
'twas an interesting listen. Will be interesting to read the ruling.