So, a total win here may be meaningless to the rest of the nation, thanks to this change in the question?
Don't let yourself be so demoralized here. The "total win" is not as small as you'd imagine.
You are looking at this as "6 of 50 states" and thinking it would be a hollow victory to get shall issue in those 6 states - 12% of states, a slim minority of the country.
Those 6 states have a combined total population of 76.8 million people, or 23.3% of our total population.
So a better to look at this is 1 out of 4 people in this country have their right of self-defense severely limited, and are living subject to a "victim" mindset imposed by the authority of a restrictive state government. Their only legal option in the event they are attacked in public is to hope they can get their phone out, dial it, survive long enough for help to arrive. The true realization is that none of those things are even remotely guaranteed to happen, leaving them in a defenseless victim condition at all times, subject to the mercy of criminals and whether or not the authorities even feel like responding to the event, should the person manage to even call for help. There's a lot of "if's" and a huge amount of critical time elapsing between a person needing help and them actually receiving help.
Whereas reaching for a firearm which the state *must* issue a permit for, instead of a phone, is an immediate possible counter to the imminent acts of violence they are subjected to as a victim.
For 1 in 4 people, they don't even have that option today.
So even if the question is narrowly framed, it affects a significant amount of our fellow citizens who have zero options to defend their own lives from death or serious bodily harm.
The way the question was re-phrased is also good for a foundation.
"“whether the State’s denial of petitioners’ applications for concealed-carry licenses for self-defense violated the Second Amendment.”"
The key part here is "for self-defense" - in McDonald vs. Chicago the 2nd amendment was determined to be a universal right, but did not go so far as to make "self defense" a reason; it just said that states cannot universally prohibit the carrying of firearms in public; but left the reasons to allow it open to interpretation. Neither did Heller vs. D.C. - it only stipulated that the 2nd amendment applies for self defense
in the home.
Having a supreme court decision that clearly spells out that self-defense in public (and not just the home) is a constitutionally protected right?
That is a good thing and ultimately a step in the right direction to being rid of gun free zones where people are still helpless victims. It will be much easier to challenge, nationwide, various states blanket prohibition on carrying in previously prohibited places. The phrasing of the majority decision will become paramount to that end; and depending on how the decision is specifically worded it may very well crack open the areas we are still restricted.
In the same way that Heller vs. DC led directly to the findings in McDonald vs. Chicago, which guaranteed that the right to carry a firearm couldn't be *universally* prohibited, this case is a building block to build out on those findings such that self defense is a valid reason to carry a concealed firearm in public, and will also fundamentally decide that self-defense of the individual regardless of where they happen to be is a protected right.
That will open the door to challenge a great deal more than is possible at present.
The original phrasing of the question:
“Whether the Second Amendment allows the government to prohibit ordinary law-abiding citizens from carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense.”
Leaves things open to a great deal more challenge as yes, it *is* possible for the government to prohibit carrying handguns outside the home for self-defense {FOR THESE SPECIFIC REASONS}.
The latter way of phrasing the question takes that OUT of the equation. There's very little counter argument possible from the standpoint of opposition, the question is framed very specifically to disallowing an application to carry firearms in public for self-defense.
So you can't say "no, because of this, this, and this."
Edit: The phrasing would very likely also affects interstate - e.g. Illinois near total ban on out of state applications. If the Supreme Court rules that *any* individuals right to apply to a state for a concealed carry license for self defense shall result in a permit being issued, then, by nature, that means
any citizen of the US who applies. Not just people within that state.
Sure, might have to pay for an out of state license, but would solve the issue of folks living in one state, travelling across the border to a more restrictive state, where they lose the right of self defense in public entirely (e.g. indiana residents commuting to Chicago).