I've been taking some time to digest the wording of the Heller decision, and while I'm not a lawyer I believe that the wording is plain enough to draw a few conclusions.
1st is that the Heller decision settles that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, not a collective right. 2nd, that outright bans on firearms are unconstitutional.
Now for the bad parts.
The 2nd Amendment hasn't been "incorporated" to the states, which means another court battle is likely. This is specifically mentioned in the decision.
The Heller decision does not protect against bans on specific classes of firearms, for example Washington DC classifies semi-automatic pistols as "machine guns" and therefore only revolvers or other manually operated pistols will be licensed.
The Heller decision does not apply to quantity, DC is licensing only one pistol per applicant.
The Heller decision does not apply outside the home. This means that onerous restrictions can be placed on transporting firearms from location to location, and that "gun free zones" still remain legal victim disarmament areas.
Clearly this leaves a lot of work to be done for freedom.