it is based on a bit of historical sophistry to conclude that the "well regulated militia" clause of the Second Amendment is essentially meaningless and that the right to bear arms is a personal and not a collective right. Such was the holding of the case.
There is nothing in Heller that allows an automatic weapons ban. The Court references automatic weapons bans among the types of legislation that would not accomplish the stated purpose of the D.C. legislation.
With reference to gun registration, the Court engaged in a lengthy discussion of the legislation scheme enacted by D.C. that did two things. First, it made illegal the possession of unregistered handguns AND forbade the registration of handguns. In addition to being too cute by half, the scheme was a transparent handgun ban without a clear statement to that effect.
The Court noted the obvious that no Constitutional rights are unlimited. In dicta, the Court stated: "Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms." Importantly, the Court did not say that such restrictions would be permissible, only that the opinion did not say they were not.
Referencing United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), the Court noted "We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those 'in common use at the time.'" The reference to Miller is odd since that case upheld a ban against sawed-off shotguns because such weapons were not historically used by militias. It seems unlikely that the Court's reference to weapons in common use at the time of the adoption of the Second Amendment was intended to limit the right to possess weapons to muzzle loading flintlocks. It seems likely the Court would approve some limitation of the right to possess weapons (e.g. tanks and chemical agents). However, there is nothing in Heller to provide clear guidance concerning the acceptable limits of such limitations.
What needs to be done is for common sense firearms regulations to be enacted. They will, all most certainly, be challenged in the Courts. Perhaps the Court will provide clearer guidance.
= new reply since forum marked as read
