I thought Dellinger had a weak case logically, so he had to give away a lot. He did well with what he had, but the case is so bad that it didn't make him look good. His argument was only going to work with a judge that was predisposed towards his position and willing to ignore the text, and fortunately Kennedy is not anti-gun and he sees the text as straightforward. I was impressed with the fact that, knowing that he was going to lose on the militia argument, Dellinger was flexible at closing, giving away the trigger locks and just arguing the pistol ban.
I thought the SG was very effective. Hopefully the decision will be narrow and the court can avoid the whole standard of review argument. The Chief laid out that approach, and Clement agreed that it would satisfy him.
I thought Gura didn't do as well as the other two. He definately had a good understanding of the history and the details of the case, but he gave away so much that his arguments had little logical coherence. He was not flexbile; even though it was apparent that he had won on the militia issue, he was still in appeasement mode. He watered down and misconstrued Miller, and then argued that it was bad law. Why not just apply it accurately, and then argue it is bad law (the arguments that way reinforce eachother, and either result the court goes with results in a win)? His answers sometimes meandered, requiring prodding from the justices (example, Ginsburg on registration). At few times he didn't quite seem to get the drift of what the judges were asking and justices had to keep asking the same question several times (example: Souter and crime statistics). He had a witness' tendency to agree with the judge, just about falling into a "Counsel at argument conceded that ..." trap several times, but Scalia saved his bacon or he managed to pull himself out.
I am being unduly harsh on Gura of course; I have been practicing longer than him and could not have done half so well, and he was up against counsel with 70 supreme court arguments between them. He certainly has all my respect for getting the case to where it is.
Anyway, I don't think oral argument matters much, and Roberts has laid out the path that will make the concessions we made a non-issue.