Well my favorite part so far is when Jensen says, in response to the state's assertion that "There's suggestion that the rate of firearms deaths goes up with public carrying of firearms
"I am loath to even go there, but to resort to statistics is essentially impertinent. This is a court of law, not a court of social science."
I'm certainly biased but it seems that the state has problems with contradictions - the one being that they started their argument by saying "This case is not about whether gun regulations are a good or a bad idea
." But then they later argue that gun regulations are a good thing and allowing people to carry is a "bad" thing that has significant societal costs.
I also felt that Jensen was correct in pointing out the flaw in their argument referencing 19th Centruy English law... When the 2nd Amemdment was in part a response to England's attempt to disarm the colonies in the first place. And also pointing out that further analysis of 19th century English law should not be undertaken by the lower courts since the Supreme Court has already done the definitive analysis of it in the Heller decision.