While Emerson himself may be screwed, and this particular case might have dead-ended without resulting in the immediate nullification (or whatever the term would be) of all existing gun control laws, I think it is a very big victory for us anyway.
It will probably take a different case or action starting up from scratch before the Supreme Court resolves the tremendous conflict that now exists between the different circuit courts. But when they do, the powerful direct language and many references to historical documents contained in this decision will make it very, very difficult indeed to NOT issue a ruling that is both favorable for us and solid in it's impact. Too much has been said here and in the district court decision for the higher court to dance around the issue or pretend that historical documents do not exist.
Just look at this clear language:
"We agree with the district court that the Second Amendment protects the right of individuals to privately keep and bear their own firearms that are suitable as individual, personal weapons and are not of the general kind or type excluded by Miller, regardless of whether the particular individual is then actually a member of a militia."
I guess the "type excluded by Miller" are guns having no potential military use, something I personally can live with since the modern military uses such a wide range of weapons. And since most "sporting" guns would find safe refuge in the shadow of the formerly-evil military types anyway.
Overall, we could hardly have asked for a better choice of words: "individuals"; "privately keep"; "their own firearms"; "personal weapons". There is simply no way for the anti-gunners to twist this around in the future to claim it's all about the National Guard or duck hunting.
The expression "suitable as individual, personal weapons" could in a sense be a limitation on the Second Amendment, but I think it's a necessary and welcome one. How many times have anti-gunners brought up the idea of restriction-free ownership of bazookas, anti-aircraft missiles, or atomic bombs to ridicule our interpretation of the right to bear arms? With all the nuts and terrorists running around today, we know there is going to be a line drawn somewhere. Since the Second Amendment is an [i]individual[/i] right related to (though not limited to) militia duty, it makes sense to draw the line between the type of individual weapon that a single militiaman might reasonably show up with on one hand, and crew-served guns or weapons of mass destruction on the other. Sure, I hate to expose crew-served machineguns to legal restrictions, but there is no other logical place to draw the much-needed line and we have to set realistic goals. Hopefully, if this ever works out to where we can freely keep and bear real select-fire assault rifles again, there will not appear to be much reason to pile restrictions onto crew-served weapons that are arguably only marginally more "dangerous."
I'm no lawyer or law professor, but I think we done pretty good this time. Especially considering that bum Emerson we had to work with.