Emerson won't be able to take the "individual rights" issue up because he prevailed on that issue. Legal term: issue not ripe.
It would be up to the government. Under the clintonistas, they would have automatically appealed it. Under the new regime, I just don't know if they will switch positions (hopefully). If they do, they will want to make sure this case does not have some factual quirk which could mess up the pure "individual rights" issue. I suspect the government will not appeal this issue -- leaving it only as good law in the 5th circuit (Texas, Louisiana & Mississippi).
The best chance to take it up to the Supreme Court will probably come in a case from a more liberal circuit where the gun-owner makes an Emerson-type claim and the circuit court finds that 2nd amendment is a "collectivist right" or a "state right". Then, that gun-owner will be able to file a writ of certiorari claiming conflict of circuits and that his claim is ripe because he did not prevail at the circuit level.
Here is one for consideration from the 9th Circuit Appeals ---for a California case where a man owning and operating a responding security alarm business was denied a concealed weapons permit ---
Quote from case-- "We follow our sister circuits in holding that the Second Amendment is a right held by the states, and does not protect the possession of a weapon by a private citizen. We conclude that Hickman can show no legal injury, and therefore lacks standing to bring this action. "
link to --- Hickman v. Block