I think your interpretation is right. Under the Emerson decision, the 2nd amendment is an individual right like the 1st or 4th amendments. However, also like those amendments, it can be subject to reasonable restrictions. Generally, the onus is on the government to show that that those restrictions are reasonable. NOTE: the courts have been reluctant to allow many restrictions on free speech. Emerson's lawyers should look at those cases to attack the restriction in his case as overbroad.
From reading this opinion, it does not appear to be the end of the line for Mr. Emerson's attempt to obtain a firearm. What Judge Cummings did was totally knock out the U.S.'s case. Now it will be up to the feds to prove that the restriction on Mr. Emerson's 2nd amendment right is justified by his conduct. I will not be surprised if Mr. Emerson again prevails at the district court with Judge Cummings tailoring his ruling to fall within the 5th circuits decision.
It sounds convoluted, but that is how the appellate system works.
One thing this could probably do, correct me if I'm wrong: There should now be some major disagreement among the circuit courts -- which would force the USSC to hear, say, someone's appeal against the assault weapons ban.
Thank you for your expertise. I guess I should start cheering. Now, am I correct that this case then provides conflicting interpretaions at the Court of Appeals level that will make the issues ripe for the supreme Court to issue mandamus when an appropriate case comes before it?
Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown