After reviewing the audio, I think it fair to say that this panel was quite aware of the implications of doing away with the handgun restrictions of § 922(b)(3).
This is evident, not only in the way in which Mr. Gura was questioned (which if taken alone - and out of context - appeared to be badgering), but also in the way that the Gov. was "attacked" by the same panel when it was their turn at bar.
Gura did a masterful job of defending his client in the face of questioning that called the alleged injury itself into question. He never backed down and rather forcefully told the panel it was wrong if it perceived any part of the injury to be caused by 3rd parties, as the court suggested.
Contrast that to the Governments position that the injury, if any, was in fact caused by 3rd parties, not present in the litigation, and not by the government itself (due to the law at issue). The Government further claimed that FFL couldn't possibly be held accountable for not knowing all the ins-and-outs of the various States handgun laws.
Gura rebutted this by bringing up the fact that rifle and shotgun transactions are held to the same standards as handgun transactions (the FFL must know the various laws in order to proceed with the transaction), barring the interstate ban on handgun transactions (the law being questioned).
Not much time was spent on the defense of the VA laws, and I believe that they will be dismissed.
The only real thing the court might hang it hat on, is the "public safety" aspect of "helping" the States with their own police power.
I find that Gura's arguments are persuasive (but then I'm biased), however if the decision is against Lane, this then is where it will reside.