I read the article. And although I agree with him on many points, I think his faith in a SCOTUS decision is misplaced. The 5th did go far to back-up their (and our) interpretation of the 2nd, but just because one circuit went for the individual rights theory, don't go throwing a party yet. Mr. Lankford seemd to believe the SCOTUS will hear the case, apply the individual rights theory, and reverse on the due process grounds. I think the dissent touched on a far more likely scenario. Namely, that the SCOTUS could hear the case and affirm the 5th Circuit ruling. In other words, adopting the individual rights theory, but affording that individual right such a low level of scrutiny almost any legislation would pass constitutional muster. Just because you have an individual right does not mean that right is whats known as a "fundamental right" and subject to strict (constitutional) scrutiny. The lowest level of constitutional scrutiny (rational basis) can be applied to an individual right under the right circumstances. Under this low level of scrutiny, almost any federal legislation can survive if it is rationally related to a legitimate gov't interest. So to bottom line it, the SCOTUS could easily say, "yes there is an individual right", but apply such low scrutiny as to make that individual right subject to any legislation that comes down the pike.
The other problem is that whatever limited scope that individual right has, its still only good against the federal gov't. The second amendment still has not been incorporated to the states through the 14th amendment so the states are still free to legislate without consideration to the 2nd amendment. The thing about Emmerson, however, is that it may pave the way for the next big battle for incorporation of the 2nd amendment.