To have any practical effect (beyond forcing otherwise permissive states to recognize out of state permits where they don't already do so), such a bill would have to have a minimum floor for rights while carrying.
While this is theoretically possible, through either legislation or judicial definition/recognition of minimum gun carry rights (I'm thinking the latter is more likely... thank you Alan Gura) enforcement of particular time, place, and manner restriction on carrying would likely have to be fought in the courts a little bit at a time.
Many such individual restrictions would probably be upheld, although several popular ones would probably not. I think the likely test for such restrictions would be as follows:
1. The restriction must be justified by a legitimate government interest
-My personal opinion is that because the general possibility of gun violence unquestionably attends any 2A rights, such potential for violence should not be recognized as a valid government interest... there should be a more particularized showing of government need (i.e. violence is particularly likely in bars moreso than in other locations, security is needed more in places like courthouses and airports, etc.).
2. The restriction must be "narrowly tailored" to achieve that government end (don't use your powers of logical reasoning here... the test is fairly permissive)
3. Perhaps most importatly for gun owners, the restrictions (either by themselves, or--importantly--in the aggregate) must not unduly violate the right to defend oneself such that it cannot be exercised as a practical matter.
Thus, broad and sweeping restrictions on the places where one can carry, such that a person could not reasonably go about their day without violating them, would probably be void. There is probably a justified government interest anywhere the government feels the necessity to provide weapons screening and/or armed security (public airports, courthouses, schools, etc.), wherever there are large crowds likely to be hurt by even a justified use of deadly force (sporting events, parades...perhaps even movie theatres and restaurants), and bars. Private property is almost certain not to have 2A protection for carry... however if such a place is a business open to the public, then the question becomes much closer unless it falls into one of the other exceptions (such as bars, or public buisnesses such as banks that provide their own private security).
There is probably not a justifiable interest in keeping guns out of parks, post offices, most public buildings, and other places that only are only restricted to hamper gun owners or make people "feel" safe and not for valid public safety reasons (again, remembering that the general possibility of violence, without more, is not a valid public safety reason).
My reasoning isn't necessarily my own personal opinion, just what I think the court (in its current composition) would uphold. We would do well, however, to remember that the four justicies in the MacDonald minority showed their absolute willingness to ignore prior precedent when they dissented in that case.
RmeJu
