In the first part, Judge Posner dominates Gura's time by splitting hairs on the limits to the right. Most particularly, can one carry in liquor stores and bars.
I think that Alan should have taken the lead in the discussion (and cut Posner off at the knees) over bars and liquor stores by simply saying, "Yes, the State may place limits on carry in those areas." In other words, throw it under the bus and attack this in another venue some other day (Classic Example: VCDL and what they did in Virginia).
I realize the above will not make any friends here, but the right is going to be limited to some extent. By not capitulating to the concerns of the court, Gura did not get to move on to other areas, he may have wished to present.
This turns out to be a non-sequitur, as we see, when we get further into the arguments by the State.
Charles Cooper's presentation was sorta lackluster in my opinion. It neither helped or hurt. To his credit, Cooper did correctly state what the Act of Northhampton really said and how the crime of affray translates to brandishing weapons today. This was necessary, I feel, as the State's case hinges on this one aspect of English Common Law to prove that carry in the public was forbidden, or in the alternative, heavily restricted.
The meat of the orals was the States case and the way the Judges all but ridiculed the State and it's law. Heavy emphasis was given to bearing arms and how Heller expounded upon that word. Several examples were given (by the judges themselves) of how the State made its own citizens defenseless against the criminal element.
I'm cautiously optimistic that we will see the Illinois laws ruled unconstitutional.