Where we THINK the court is going to go is with a set of options for the states, backed first by the idea that there's a right to carry.
There's a bunch of case law (mostly 19th Century but with some as late as 2003 such as the Ohio Supreme Court in Klein) that says concealed carry can be restricted or even eliminated so long as (loaded) open carry is legal. The US Supremes might back this view. We know that as actually happened in Ohio in 2004, we can "annoy our way" from there into a shall-issue concealed permit law we can live with.
The court may also back a shall-issue concealed carry system as a more modern alternative, and as long as the costs are low and the equality high, we can cope with that.
What I don't think we're challenging just yet is a situation such as Texas/FL where a fairly expensive ($200 or so with training) concealed permit is necessary to carry at all, and permitless open carry as a zero-cost alternative is banned. Kachalsky isn't the case that will challenge this. Kachalsky was designed to confirm that carry outside the home, IN SOME FORM, is a basic civil right.
We know that states where permitless, zero-cost open carry and permitted concealed carry exist will be upheld as constitutional. There's a lot of these states. The only ones that might be constitutionally questioned are those where open carriers are extensively harassed, or that one bizarre state (can't remember if it's Mississippi or Missouri?) where the moment ANY part of a gun is covered by a holster it's considered concealed, per some really dumb court rulings. (Somebody is already making clear plastic holsters...)