The finding on the magazine limit is flawed, and I in part blame those who are bringing this lawsuit who also were involved with Heller.
Way back in US vs Miller when the government had its shill arrested to make a case to uphold the '34 NFA part of that opinion stated that if evidence had been presented showing that the firearm in question was used by the military then it would have had a militia purpose and been protected under the 2A. We all know Miller was dead and no testimony was offered on his behalf leaving that a flawed ruling based on a lack of evidence and not a trial of fact.
In Heller, they found the 2A providing an individual right to self defense with arms "commonly used at the time". The SCOTUS (deliberately I think) dropped part of that phrase which should read "commonly used by the soldier at the time". I've even heard some of the experts for "our side" shy away from this aspect leading me to suspect they are not necessarily fully on board with defending the whole right. If this was defended properly the '34 NFA would have been put away years ago as it clearly violates the purpose of the 2A in providing for an armed populace that is capable of forming a militia in line with a military force mustered against it.
I'd suggest that they aren't pushing that aspect, given there appears to be no argument presented in the case at hand regarding the actual main purpose for the 2A, why it refers to a militia etc. That is that it is our right in our own defense to throw off our own government should it become dangerous to our lives and liberty. Of course the current incarnation of it is loathe to acknowledge that with the many scandals and abuses heaped upon the populace over the last several years. It is obvious that ammunition capacity in a battlefield situation which a militia would find itself is a crucial factor.
Another facet neglected apparently is that not all rounds present in the gun have to be fired to be an effective deterrent. Take the case of a riot with a hundred people bearing down on a single person. If that person has a 10 rounds magazine (or 15 if they can find one for their gun since most are 10, 20 or 30 for rifle calibers) the crowd is going to be less intimmidated to assault them than if they had a 30 round or larger magazine that drops the odds from 1:10 of them getting shot to almost 1:3 - that math has a severe chilling effect on the willingness of the crowd to push forward and sacrifice a few members to attack a person or two. This was a deciding factor several times over during the LA riots in '92. Mr. Ayoob apparently forgot to mention that the Koreans on top of that store fired dozens, hundreds of shots even keeping the mob off their building, from indeed burning the building down from under them.
Much like Gandalf in "Lord of the Rings" standing in the path of a mob with a 30 round magazine hanging out of an AR15 says "You shall not pass." That saved several blocks of Los Angeles real estate that year.
Yet another factor I did not see mentioned though there was a reference to offensive vs defensive reloading, is that when you are defensively reloading you are actively opposed by the attacker. This makes the reload more difficult, deadly and even impossible for the moment they see you so engaged they will press the attack if they have any competence. While a reload can be done in a second or two, the average is more in the 3-5 second vicinity and then you can factor in panic and adrenaline - it might take 10 seconds to fumble about and get it loaded and charged again for an average person.
The offensive user (mass shooter) does not have this issue. After shooting numerous people, when they go to reload people are running away or cowering behind objects - by the time they realize a reload is in progress its almost always going to be too late to do anything about it (the single instance where the shooter dropped his magazine and it was swatted away by someone at his feet was an assassination, not a mass shooting per se). The only thing that gives you rapid response against that situation is having a firearm or other weapon (and being close enough to use it) which if you had it may well already have been employed, but generally only if you had such would you be waiting for the chance to act vs simply trying to get small and avoid fate.
Very dissappointed that these points weren't apparently included into the testimony. Now given that the judge made the point this was a "facial" challenge does that mean the poor sap that gets charged some day will get his chance to challenge it? Of course, will he get to because the way the system is rigged, that takes a lot of money (public defender certainly won't give it 5 minutes), the government relies on breaking you financially to assert its power over and above your rights.