...would be one which removes the militia clause. I would prefer not to make that change. I dislike removing the militia clause because I would prefer to see states begin real militias and make service mandatory. Also, actually removing the militia clause (I'm not an expert in Constitutional law) may necessitate other Constitutional changes relating to the other mentions of the militia.
I believe that the Bill of Rights says what it does because many expert minds from all of the states and the various conventions found a consensus to agree on of what rights all people had. It's been over 220 years and the BoR has not changed. I think it's fine as is.
The Young v Hawaii decision is a decision for the ability to carry period. It is and has always been upheld by various courts that states have the authority to restrict concealed carry as they see fit. States which grant virtually no CC permits have to accept that OC will be found as acceptable when similar laws are challenged.
BTW, I'm not sure if it is correct but your profile says you are in Arkansas. IIRC that is one of the states which now has unrestricted concealed carry. If you can legally buy a concealable gun, you can carry concealed. Maybe I'm wrong. 
Anyhow, a big thanks for replying and engaging in discussion. I also appreciate you putting the news on the 9th Circuit decision out there. 
Have great evening. 
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read
