The States court ordered response and MTD is in (see the current 2A cases thread for links).
Chester states that the State bears the burden of showing that the challenged law is constitutional “unless the conduct at issue is not protected by the Second Amendment at all[.]” Chester at * 18 (emphasis added). The obvious implication of this statement is that it is Plaintiffs, not the State Defendants, who bear the burden of satisfying the first prong of the test set out in Chester – that is, proving that a recognized right to carry guns off of one’s property during a state of emergency existed at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification. Plaintiffs’ Response Brief fails to meet this burden, offering no historical evidence of their own on this question and, instead, incorrectly implying that it is the State Defendants’ burden to do so.
Note the part I underlined. That is twisting the facts to suit your own agenda (that we've never seen before...
No... The plaintiffs need only establish that carry, outside the home was recognized at the time of ratification. It is the very act of the statute that offends the right.
But the State does not stop there.
The defendants go on to conflate the English right (predecessor to our own 2A) with its various restrictions, to our own version of the right, "This notion that the right to bear arms was subject to governmental restriction carried over into the common law in America."
The State then ignores that the English right to arms was subject to the absolute discretion of the Parliament, while ours was went much stronger in character with the words, "shall not be infringed."
Having set up this straw man, the State quickly knocks it down with, "Not only does the ability to possess a firearm outside of one’s home during a state of emergency not lie at the “core” of the Second Amendment but, in fact, it does not even reside within the Amendment’s outer limits ... that is, the right to possess a gun in one’s home."
Forgive me if I restate the core holding of Heller,
the right to possess a gun for self-defense is
the "core" holding. The "in the home" portion only answered the question that was asked in that particular case.
Once again, we see (what has become) the standard argument by the various defendants, that your right to self-defense stops at the door to your home.