I've read the Petitioner's Reply Brief.
First reaction, it appears to have been authored by different person or persons. It has a much more lawyerly and legal tone, and almost no emotional hysteria. I hate to admit it, but IMHO a well written brief. I don't agree with their position, but it was better argued. They appear to have dropped the protecting society claims in the face of the respondent's and related amici.
2/3's of the brief is devoted to State's rights view of the second amendment. And nothing really new needs to be said here.
The next section and probably their best point was if the SCOTUS finds an individual right, than a relaxed standard of review is the proper standard and as long as a law is reasonable it should be constitutional. I think it was their strongest position put forward. And of coarse they had to parrot the machine gun scare, and for added good measure the dangerous weapons don't belong in civilized society claim.
The last section of their brief seemed to say that if the court declared trigger locks unconstitutional they could live with that as long as the rest of the DC law was held constitutional.
It started out as a pretty good brief, but I think it ended pretty weak. But if SCOTUS decides that the second amendment is an individual right and strict scrutiny is the standard, they didn't seem to be able to give the court a means of agreeing with their position.
This brief did met my expectations.
It is now on to March 18 and oral arguments.