If you have read Emerson you will note that after determining that the Second Amendment protects an individual right - and a fundamental one at that - the Emerson Court denies the appeal by analyzing VAWA using a rational basis test. This is the wrong test when analyzing a statute that seeks to regulate a fundamental individual right. The correct test is strict scrutiny - and 90% of the current gun control laws, VAWA included, cannot stand that type of analysis. Emerson should be taken up by SCOTUS for two reasons:
1) to correct all the lower Courts' misinterpretation of Miller; and
2) because the Emerson Court analyzed VAWA using the wrong standard.
I don't have much hope that SCOTUS will actually use the correct standard, because I think the liberals on the Court realize the effect it would create on the rest of the "reasonable" (but unconstitutional) gun control laws.
Why don't I like the administration's position? Because although it must defend the laws before SCOTUS, it also has an obligation to respect the Constitution - and I don't for one minute believe they think the proper standard is "reasonable restrictions" - they are just trying not to piss off their gun-owning red zone voters while at the same time trying not to piss off the idiot blue zone voters who believe the swill coming from the anti-gun morons.
They ought to leave politics out of the equation and follow the Constitution as their oaths require them to do. Hell, they won't make the blue zone voters happy unless they all resign, so why bother trying?
What is VAWA?