There are some interesting things in Heller (
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/g ... vol=07-290" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;) that have been little discussed, AFAIK.
Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.
This part of the ruling does not preclude governments from requiring that even handguns kept exclusively in the home for the purpose of self defense be licensed. It also does not preclude governments from requiring that homeowners wishing to own handguns purely for self defense within the home obtain a license, which could require training as well as a financial cost (meaning a tax because all government fees are taxes) purely for keeping a handgun within the home for self defense.
Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
This part of the ruling leaves a dangerous hole through which anti-gun types could legislate further restrictions. The "in common use at the time" phraseology requires that all patriots continue to maintain the weapons of their choice in common use, lest they be found to not be in common use and therefore available for banning from any use. Particularly those weapons that are often called "assault weapons" are still at risk with this ruling. They merely have to be determined to be "dangerous and unusual" to be banned completely.