I think there is a strong argument for Kachalsky prevailing.
i don't think SCOTUS is going to overturn Moore.
Moore says that Heller/McDonald identified the right to self defense as part of the Second Amendment :
To confine the right to be armed to the home is to divorce the Second Amendment from the right of self-defense described in Heller and McDonald.
...this case, like Heller and McDonald is just about self-defense.
'The Supreme Court has decided that the amendment confers a right to bear arms for self-defense, which is as important outside the home as inside.
If you just look at "good cause" in light of the Moore decision - "good cause" fails. We know that it's not only people who work in dangerous professions - like the owner of a jewelry store or a diamond courier, who get robbed and killed, and people don't get warnings before they are raped or mugged. A small percentage of people become aware of the danger before being attacked, and they are able to do things like get orders of protection or a restraining order, but that is small percentage of crime victims. The second amendment confers the right to bear arms for self defense outside of the home. No American has to show just cause to exercise a constitutional right, and no one can be denied a constitutional right pending the showing of their need for it.
If you don't believe that logic has anything to do with it - which I am sometimes inclined to believe when I read some of the nonsense that Judge Sue Myerscough or Judge Ann Claire Williams has written, then you just hope that the 5-4 majority votes along traditional lines (not counting Obamacare).