But you miss my point. It's the next court that counts, and whether this is dicta depends on what that court holds, not this one. The logic of what you say is correct, but you are mistaken if you think you can rely on the next court to feel bound by that logic.
Not quite. The RKBA conclusions in this case ARE NOT dicta, they are central to the final ruling. The 5th Circuit concluded that Emerson's RKBA right _could_ be suspended via due process - and to suspend the right requires that there be a right to suspend. They had to make it absolutely clear (not dicta, but central finding) that the 2nd Amendment guarantees an individuals RKBA, _then_ they made it clear that such Constitutional rights may, under limited due process conditions, be suspended. If the finding was mere dicta, there would not have been a right to suspend.
The next court, be it USSC or the original court (to which the case has been remanded), can only address the "due process" issue. The RKBA issue is settled: the plantiff (feds) cannot appeal the issue to the USSC because they won this round, the plantiff cannot raise the issue again in the lower court because a higher court settled the issue, the defendant cannot appeal the issue to the USSC because the 5th Circuit agreed with him (he can only quibble with the "due process" part), and the defendant cannot raise it in the lower court because the 5th Circuit agreed with both the defendant and lower court.
In the 5th Circuit's jurisdiction, the RKBA is SETTLED. The way to get RKBA to the USSC is to raise the same question in a different jurisdiction and get an equal court to differ with the 5th Circuit, causing an equal-protection rift that could only be settled by the next court up: USSC. May Robinson go there with his squeaky-clean well-funded case - and may he do it soon.
Second, and I've posted this before on other discussions regarding this subject:
If the SCOTUS were to ignore the plain meaning of the Second Amendment; or was to come up with a revisionist - "times have changed" justification for ignoring the plain meaning of the Second Amendment - then my oath as an attorney, and in my current job, which requires that I protect the Constitution, would require me to determine that this country is no longer being lawfully governed and I would fight to my last breath to restore a Constitutional Republic as required by my oaths.
There are maybe 80 - 100 million more people like me, many are police and military. The SCOTUS and every other legal scholar are damn well aware of this sentiment. While some on the SCOTUS might be your typical leftist, Socialist pukes, they aren't that stupid - to openly invite the destruction of this country.
The Leftist Courts have painted themselves into a judicial corner since FDR threatened to pack the Court with all their "progressive" decisions, all the while ignoring the one Amendment that will ultimately prove to be the means to preserve our Country from the present slide into Socialism.
By the way, this is the very reason it exists, to give all three branches of Government pause regarding how they execute their duties.