If I may give my own observations and interpretations?
At oral arguments, judges more often than not question a plaintiff/appellant, who is challenging the constitutionality of a law (remembering that the law is presumed to be constitutional to begin with). Such questioning can seem brutal, but the judges are merely trying to get a grip on just how far the plaintiff/appellants theory extends.
If you really listen to what is happening, as soon as Gura answers on point, the judge(s) move to a new question. Why was Gura "grilled" so much more than the State? Because Gura has more to say to the panel than the State.
The very questions the judges asked, show several things. They are 2A novices. They wanted to get to the logical implications of Gura's theory. They wanted to see the policy implications. They were also very well versed in the briefings.
Gura possibly made the best point of all, when he talked about the 1A analogy and "prior restraint." If the judges didn't at first "get it," they certainly did when Gura used the "permission from the King," analogy - They used it against the State AG, later on.
Even though the NY AG used a TPM analogy as the constitutional reason for keeping the law intact, the judges didn't let him off the hook. It's rationing of a right and the AG was backed into a corner of his own making. That corner was first painted when the NY AG finally admitted that self-defense occurs outside the home.
It was obvious to me that certainly 1, perhaps 2 judges were leaning towards Gura's arguments. There was a lot of cross-talk between them.