Not really. Illinois’ ban was a universal ban on all concealed-carry permits. Colorado’s was only on giving concealed-carry permits to non-residents.
I think it is more correct to say that the court tossed out the Illinois ban on CARRYING OUTSIDE THE HOME. Nothing I read suggested that Illinois could not satisfy the court by enacting legislation permitting open carry.
Bryanw92 said: "There is a constitutional right to BEAR ARMS. That means open carry."
I don't agree. If the Founders had intended to enable the federal government to restrict or regulate concealed carry, they could certainly have said so. At the time of the ratification of the Second Amendment, there was no intention to permit federal regulation of arms whatsoever.
The Fourteenth Amendment recognized that states were violating the rights of freed slaves and this Amendment was used to incorporate the Second Amendment; meaning that its restrictions apply against the states.
Deciding that incorporation of the Second Amendment permits states to prohibit concealed carry, ought to immediately suggest that the Second Amendment would permit the federal government to prohibit concealed-carry or to implement the training and registration mechanisms similar to many states. That's a scary thought.
The recent experiences of Vermont, Alaska, and Arizona in allowing open or concealed carry without a permit provides all the proof that any court should need that no compelling reason or even a rational basis exists for requiring permits to exercise the right to keep and bear arms.