the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.
This means cities can license and regulate. This means you have a privilege that can be taken away and not a right. You can't be half pregnant and you can't have half a right.
The difference is between “can” and “must”. DC has no choice in the matter, they MUST allow him to register and carry his firearm in his home.
“This is from the Supreme Court ruling
the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.”
This wording is troubling. They snuck in the word “carry” to set the stage for stricter CCW laws. Gun-controllers will use this wording to limit carrying to inside the home instead of in public.
The case was supposed to be just about “keeping” arms, not about “bearing” arms in public which is a separate issue. I suspect this sentence was carefully/awkwardly worded like this in order to get consensus for the ruling.
I predict trouble for CCW rights.
The opinion went that way because it wasn't part of the case. Heller never argued against the registration requirement; the simplest remedy, therefore, was to direct the District of Columbia to isse the permit that Heller sought.
The ruling neither creates nor affirms any governmental authority to register arms.
You have to register to vote, also, but that does not mean that the government can deny you the right to vote except under certain very limited circumstances. There is a compelling government interest in maintaining fair elections. But voting is not a privilege that can be taken away for capricious or arbitrary reasons.
The registration and licensing of Heller's handgun will go forward unless there is something that makes Heller legally ineligible to exercise his right to keep his handgun at home.