I suggest that scope based questions may become reasons for a verdict for the defendant, the State of Hawaii. I don't think Mr. Beck adequately outlined that Mr. Young's challenge is to the State law as enforced by the County. Perhaps this is by design in preparing for a further future appeal.

As I understand:
1- Hawaii issues virtually no concealed permits.
2- The County issues open carry permits to almost no one other than security guards and similar professionals.

AFAIK the case hinges on the conflict between 2 established historical facts. The first is that in court cases and legislative precedents there are laws and decisions affirming that private citizens may carry a firearm in public for lawful purposes such as self-defense. This along with numerous findings of not guilty of assault and/or homicide from many jurisdictions where self-defense by firearm has occurred and been justified. The second is that it is alleged that, in practice, Hawaii County does not grant carry permits to anyone other than security professionals and that the State has a ban on open carry.

Established law and precedent names personal firearm carry beyond the home as a protected right but not an unlimited one.