Unfortunately the effect is to take a case which was on its way to the SC and, correctly ruled, would have overturned many unConstitutional laws, and derail it. Or, the effect of a pro-2nd official stance is that anti-2nd laws shall remain in effect; and later, if an anti-2nd administration gets in, the structure of bad law will remain on which more bad law can be built.
The Administration (an ethical one, anyway) is not entitled not to enforce the law; that duty is only removed if the law is removed. Only the SC (effectively; since lower rulings are appealed) or the Congress can remove these bad laws, and we certainly know that Congress is not going to help us here. Even if we get some repeals through the House there is no glimmer of hope from the Senate.
Wish I was more optimistic; I hope only that the SC will choose to hear the case anyway and that since both sides (Emerson and the administration) agree now that the ruling would then be overwhelming and decisive.
The Lautenberg Act (which--it should not be forgotten--was passed by the Senate in October of 1996 by a 98-0 margin) contains many elements that would be eggregiously unconstititional even if the Second Amendment were ignored. Among other things, it could be struck down for the same reason as "Gun Free School Zone Act I". Additionally, it makes a total mockery of the Fifth Amendment right of due process and (while not applicable to Emerson) the Constitution's prohibition against ex post facto legislation.
I see no reason why the Court would have to make a decisive ruling on the meaning of the Second-Amendment to strike down the Lautenberg Attrocity. I'm bewildered, though, by why Ashcroft isn't letting things proceed forward.