In my opinion, the reasons the Supreme Court has not accepted a carry case outside the home are:
1. Moore did not create a true split, at least not technically in regards to its holding and the holdings in the other circuits on the east coast.
2. The Ninth Circuit had not weighed in when those other cases were considered, and until it issued Peruta, was the last remaining circuit in which a "may issue" law was in effect (in California and Hawaii.) I believe the Supreme Court wanted to hear from the Ninth before acting--and had Peruta come out affirming the concealed carry law, there would be no split and nothing for the high court to resolve.
Pertuta created not just a split but a chasm--that is, as long as it remains the controlling authority in the circuit. IF affirmed on en banc, or if en banc is declined, there is a substantial probability that the case will be appealed to the Supreme Court, and that the Supreme Court will take the case to resolve the massive philosophical split on the scope of the Second Amendment outside the hoe, as well as the massive confusion as to the manner in which "intermediate scrutiny" is to be applied.