The view that the Second Amendment protects some sort of right to carry guns outside the home remains the minority view among post-Heller appellate courts, but it’s a substantial minority, and this decision adds to that minority.
Here is a bit from the decision noting that while both Heller and McDonald dealt specifically with guns in the home, their decisions clearly didn’t apply only to the home:
Though Heller and McDonald say that “‘the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute’ in the home,” that language does not mean that the need for defense of self, family and property never arises out of the home. Moore, 702 F.3d at 935. In fact, by using the modifier “most” in front of “acute,” the court acknowledged the need for self-defense in places other than the home. As the Second Amendment primarily ensures the right of an individual to bear arms “in case of confrontation,” surely the contours of that right would extend to situations where an individual would need to act in self-defense outside the individual’s home. Heller, 554 U.S. at 592.
Moreover, because the court identified reasonable restrictions such as “carrying  firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings,” the court clearly acknowledged that the scope of the Second Amendment reaches beyond the home. Heller, 554 U.S. at 626–627. Otherwise, such “restrictions” need not be identified or examined….
They also discuss the “keep” vs. “bear” aspect of the 2A. This is something that Murdoc brings up in conversation from time to time. If the 2A really meant citizens should be allowed to own guns in case they need them for service in a government militia, “keeping” them would be enough. Likewise for those who argue that guns should not be allowed outside the home and/or that they must be locked up, often separate from ammunition, sometimes disabled by trigger locks or dis-assembly. That might be “keeping,” but it sure isn’t “bearing.”