You hit right on the head. Why, however, does the Bush Administration not want the US SC to review the Emerson decision? Is it because they (as well as the whole damn US Senate) know that the court might actually have to address the "meaning" of "...shall not be infringed."?
What bothers me is that while they say, "yes, there is an individual right to arms", they also want to maintain, on the books, every rotten unconstitutional infringment of the second amendment ever legislated into place on both state and federal level. They know damn well that if the correct interpretation of "shall not be infringed" was arrived at by the SC, then 99% of these laws would be rendered null and void. What I want to see from Pres. Bush on the RKBA issue is a firm statement that the 1994 federal assault weapons ban is unconstitutional and will therefore not be enforced until it sunsets in 2004.
You won't see this because one of Bubba-2's campaign pledges was that he would sign legislation to make the so-called Assault Weapons Ban permanent if congress passed and sent it to him. Don't forget,it was his father who closed the machine gun registry,banned the importation of foreign military weapons,banned high capacity magazines,etc,etc,etc. Bush-1 signed and used executive orders to pass more gun laws than any other president I am aware of,including Carter AND Clinton.
It would be a tremedous ruling in favor of our rights at a Federal level. I'm wondering though, I had heard that this still enables individual states to maintain such constraints on firearms as they see fit, to the point of yet again infringing upon our rights. I wonder exactly how far they can go at a state level say, in a place like Californistan?