1) The Emerson case was a 5th Circuit case therefore only directly applies to those states in the 5th Circuit (Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi).
2) CCW laws are state laws. The 2nd Amendment has never been held to apply to the states through the 14th Amendment (commonly referred to as "incorporation") unlike most of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. The law at issue in Emerson is a federal law. We need a case that will allow SCOTUS to rule that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated into the 14th. Until then, you can forget about overturning state laws.
I haven't read the actual opinion yet, but these were 2 things that jumped out at me regarding your statement.
2) CCW laws are state laws. The 2nd Amendment has never been held to apply to the states through the 14th Amendment (commonly referred to as "incorporation") unlike most of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights. The law at issue in Emerson is a federal law. We need a case that will allow SCOTUS to rule that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated into the 14th. Until then, you can forget about overturning state laws.
I don't buy it. Here's why: the other side uses the 2nd -- while misinterpreting it -- to use against us. They can't have their cake and eat it too. If they want to argue that the 2nd doesn't apply to state matters, then I would presume that they'd argue it. To my knowledge, they never argue it, they only argue that it does not cover individual rights, and only applies to collective rights.
Seems to me that if they are acknowledging that it does apply to the states (which IMO is the crux of their argument!) then it's just a simple matter of ironing out the details, which yesterday's ruling seems to have done nicely.
IOW, they insisted that it applies to the states -- and now they'll have to sleep in the bed they made.