Aldisert said that "the concept of 'justifiable need' is without standard" and seemed most concerned with her lack of preparation, and he gave her ten days to file a supplemental brief answering open questions. I got the impression the court was trying to be gracious in the face of what they saw as vast incompetence.
I took it as Aldisert trying to salvage her case for her. It was pretty clear from the outset that he'd planned to just parrot the Kachalsky decision but Gura's response to his question about Kachalsky made that harder to do without at least some creative straw grasping. I suspect that reason that Aldisert was to give her 10 days to find him some better straws. I'll be shocked if he doesn't find for the state but the other two just might possibly perhaps conceivably maybe rule in our favor.
Proud Life Member: National Rifle Association, California Rifle & Pistol Association, and the Second Amendment Foundation.
Annual Member: Revolutionary War Veterans Association (Project Appleseed) and the Madison Society.