The arguments get weaker and weaker

Giffords has stepped in on a PA case with arguments to have the case heard en banc

Theses are some of the weakest arguments I've seen so far, from the infringers.

They are arguing that the panel majority applied a requirement that the regulations presented by the state "need only be 'relevantly similar'" instead of "analogous." They claim that it is too strict of an interpretation.

They claim that the panel required a precise historical analogue, which is too rigorous, nearly making it a "historical twin".

The problem is that they don't even meet that lower standard of "relevantly similar".

One part of the argument is that the Supreme Court has stated that time-place limitations are constitutional. Thus, a ban on 18-20 year-olds carrying firearms is acceptable because it is only a limit for the duration of "the emergency".

They fail to note that "the emergency" has been ongoing for over 3 years now.

So they go to their second argument.

1791 isn't the right time frame. You need to use 1868!

Giffords claims that the Supreme Court did not set the date. This is not true. The meaning of the constitution, was set when it was adopted. The meaning of each amendment was set at the time it was ratified.

In this case, the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791. That is the correct era.

The argument that it should be 1868, when the Fourteenth amendment was ratified is bogus. The 14th incorporated the meaning of the constitution, as it was understood when adopted and amendments 1-13 were ratified.

This is so weak, it shows that they are losing, becoming more and more desperate.