And after reading the heller decision I'd be interested in knowing exactly what we gained?
I realize it may not mean much, but after 209 years of avoiding the issue, the Supreme Court finally announced (what most of us already knew), that the Second Amendment guaranteed a pre-existing and individual right.
Scalia also makes reference to "common use".
This was the majorities reading of the 1939 Miller decision:
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
Assault weapons bans, mag restrictions, gun registration, and byzintine licencing requirements are all held as constitutional.
The Heller Court wrote that reasonable restrictions would be valid. The Court did not define "reasonable." McDonald likened the 2A to the 1A, wherein reasonable has been defined. Byzantine licensing schemes are going to come apart at the seems. Several lawsuits are addressing such things now.
Furthermore, while the Heller Court said that certain restrictions were presumptively constitutional, this also means that certain restrictions may also be presumptively unconstitutional.
All the current civil rights lawsuits are designed to "flesh out" what is and isn't part(s) of the core right. That is, we are currently defining what the Court left undefined.
It looks to me like Heller vs. DC hurt us more than it helped.
Really? I've heard this whine from many folks, after the Heller decision came out.
Without Heller, the anti's would still be singing that old "collective right" tune. They can't do that now. Without Heller, there would be no McDonald, and the States could continue to disarm their citizens at any whim they so desired. We've already seen Chicago immediately change their laws. The Mayor of New York is currently trying to loosen up some of the requirements there. You need to stop and ask yourself, Why?
Heller also codified that states and cities can impose any restriction they see fit, as long as there isn't an out right ban.
No. Heller said no such thing.
To understand, you first have to consider the question that was asked of the Court. Heller was concerned only with handguns, as used in the home for self-defense purposes.
What Heller actually said was that because Americans overwhelmingly choose to use handguns for the core purpose of self-defense, handguns could not be banned:
Heller said:Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have ap*plied to enumerated constitutional rights,27 banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster.
The anti's like to read Heller as saying that handguns are permissible only in the home. That also is not what the Court said.
“[T]he Second Amendment creates individual rights, one of which is keeping operable handguns at home for self-defense. What other entitlements the Second Amendment creates, and what regulations legislatures may establish, were left open [in Heller].” United States v. Skoien, 614 F.3d 638, 640 (7th Cir. 2010)(en banc)
Even the 7th Circuit agrees, that keeping a gun at home is only one of the core rights.
That's also how what is called dicta, in Heller, becomes citable precedent.
In short, Heller gives us much to fight with. Include McDonald's incorporation, and we are well on the way to winning our rights back.