The logic of the dissent is that no amount of abridgment of the right to bear arms, assuming that the right is limited to open carry, would create a right to do something that is not within the right; that is, concealed carry.
My personal opinion is that the Founders knew what it meant to conceal arms and if they wished to outlaw bearing concealed arms they could have said so.
Unfortunately, there is a relatively long history of treating concealed carry as a criminal act, so the judiciary may not include concealed carry as part of the right.
The Ninth Circuit could possibly rule that concealed carry is not part of the right and compel the legislature to "permit" open carry. And by "permit", I mean allow people to apply to their local sheriff only to be told that they lack "good cause". In effect this would simply kick the can down the road.
That's the basis of the Peruta decision.