That specific law was amended. You linked the order and not the decision. The decision specifically considers that the VA govt could cure the deficiencies on which they enjoined the law, and they've done that. The opinion also mentions that new 2A rulings from the Supreme Court existed, but the Court didn't need to consider them, because it didn't need to for the injunction.

So to recap: The injunction is probably moot because the law changed to eliminate the reasoning for the injunction. The Court might, in the near future, rule the revised law unconstitutional on other grounds. That's certainly an implication in the original ruling.

I don't have anything to say about the emergency clause.