The victory is about as total as it could get in that case, actually. Yes, Emerson had his conviction upheld on appeal. However, the Court was as straightforward and unambiguous in the assertion of an individual 2A right as the SAF would have been.
Emerson is now likely to appeal to the U.S.S.C. The issue of the scope of the 2A right is now as close to being decided definitively by the USSC as it's been since Miller.
One might worry that given the Circuit's opinion the USSC-- even if it heard the case-- might well decide only the narrow issue of whether sufficient procedural guarantees were present to support the infringement of Emerson's 2A rights--even if he had any. One might worry, in other words, that the Court might now have the opportunity rule on the case without deciding the 2A issue. This possibility I think unlikely, however. The Court would have to address the 2A issue if it heard the case. In any event, the danger that the Court would hear the case but not rule on the 2A is not any more likely now than if Emerson had won and the case was appealed by the U.S.
In both cases, the possible case in which we assume Emerson won this most recent appeal and in the actual case in which he lost it, the USSC would tacitly recognize the right of Emerson to keep and bear arms if it decided only the narrow procedural question the 5th Circuit Court decided in favor of the state. There would be no reason for the Court to do this if it didn't accept the individual rights interpretation of the 2A. In fact, if the Court didn't accept the individual rights interpretation not discussing the 2A would be harmful. And, of course, if the Court did accept the individual rights model of the 2A this would be an important fact to note so that it was clear what the issue was on which the case turned. So if the Court were actually to hear the case it would surely pronounce on the 2A whether or not Emerson had won the just-released appeal.
The important thing, then, is the Circuit Court's ruling on the 2A. It's less important than what the Circuit Court ruled on the acceptability of the procedures by which the infringement of (what the Court conceded were) Emerson's constitutional rights.
It's worth noting, though, that if anything, Emerson's loss might make the case more likely to be appealed to the USSC. Notice that if Emerson had won there would be the danger that the U.S. would have decided not to appeal to the USSC at all. That would be far from impossible. As things actually are Emerson might not appeal now, but if he'll get legal support for his case he's really got nothing to lose. So I think the danger of the case ending here is less serious now than if Emerson had won.
On the other hand there is admittedly the danger that the USSC will refuse to hear the case now-- thus leaving the District Courts with conflicting precedents. I think this danger is greater now than if Emerson had won and if the U.S. appealed. Even if the USSC doesn't hear Emerson, however, the conflicting precedents will invite other lawsuits which will eventually work their way to the USSC. Of course, the future makeup of the Court would be less clear.
In the end, then, the ruling is about as good as this case could have turned out at the level of the Circuit.
Do you want to make it this easy for them to take away your 2nd Amendment rights?
Yes. Emerson will appeal this. No one deserves to be convicted on unsubstantiated evidence. Maybe they'll take your Bible away because you were preaching to the homeless.
I don't believe he was convicted. Just as in Miller, the District court judge threw the case out on a motion by the defense. Now, absent the almost certain appeal, the district court will have to reinstate the case.