The SCOTUS today announced that it will take a major Second Amendment case. The case comes to the SCOTUS from New York, in the 2nd Circuit. New York--like eight other Blue states--requires a gun owner to provide what the state regards as a "proper cause" for wanting to "bear arms" outside his home. The reality is that, unless you're politically connected, it becomes extremely difficult to carry a firearm in any of those states. In the case at hand, New York was denying concealed carry permits to persons who said they wanted to bear a firearm for "self defense"--a pretty traditional reason.
Thus, the issue is pretty straightforward. Can a state demand a reason why a person wishes to exercise a constitutional right: not only to "keep" a firearm (in your residence) but to "bear" it. Next up--First Amendment? Why do you want to express a viewpoint that the government regards as not "proper?"
Now, while this case is, on its face, fairly narrow, it's also possible that the SCOTUS could address related issues that go beyond the actual holding. Such issues might include the extent to which states may regulate the 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms more generally. For example, other states than those most directly affected by this case have various laws in place that make gun ownership--let alone bearing a firearm--difficult or somewhat expensive. These measures go beyond such relatively traditional measures such as a ban on felons owning firearms. As a result, this case is raising hopes and apprehensions on both sides of the issue.
Thus, while the terms of the grant of certiorari are very limited, that won't prevent justices from voicing their views and presenting arguments that could sway lower courts on related issues: