Guess we'll just have to wait. I was looking for any kind of information.. even if it was just impressions on how the oral arguments went!! 
Sorry very day and night leading up to it. More than anything, I want to first say thanks to my attorney Richard for taking this on. The obvious things, is that it was not his speciality, but it says something about a man who will do something for another person - just to help him (and to also think that this has been hundreds of hours of the last year and some change, that is nothing to sneeze at). This is thankless work, and there will always be a critic.
First things first, Paul Clement went up; I personally thought he did exceptionally well, and had a great closing. The court seemed interested in what he personally thought on the case. This may have
something to do with him being ex-solicitor general and arguing many, many cases before the Supreme Court. Anyways, he did great. His opposing counsel had a very hard act to follow, but also did well. There were lots of questions about scrutiny to these individuals, and it seemed to be repeated strict from our side, and intermediate from the others.
Alan Gura argued Second, and just kind of went where Paul left off, so that worked well. He was followed by the attorney for Yolo county, who I personally thought did bad and went way far off on tangent. In fact, at one point, the person directing the panel had to reel this guy in off the ledge, because he was going who knows where.
Rick went next and did alright, we survived. There were a few issues with how Hawaii has worded the law, and the court agrees with the reading, but not necessarily the position. The court inquired hard about there being Zero permits, as that was different. The opposing counsel brought up they give it to some people, and Judge Callahan was asking why not a process server? But that they will issue to someone to guard their money. There was some serious inquiries to where and and when a right began and ended, and the States interest in public safety. Opposing counsel argued that any time we leave the doorstep, their interest prevails. The court didn't seem, at least to me, to really like that thought.
You can listen to oral arguments here:
Edward Peruta, et al. v. County of San Diego, et al. found here:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view.php?pk_id=0000010109Christopher Baker v. Louis Kealoha, et al. found here:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view.php?pk_id=0000010116Adam Richards, et al. v. Ed Prieto, et al. found here:
http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/media/view.php?pk_id=0000010111