Funny, but this is nothing new to anyone who is familiar with the Heller Decision. In fact, I've been saying this from pretty early on (check my posts)! Of course, I'm "anti-gun" so nothing I say is true, which shows the gun cretins for the brainwashed fools they are. But it is fun to read things like:
Even some pro-gun scholars and advocates reluctantly agree. “I think under the Heller decision, registration would be constitutional,” Alan Gottlieb, founder of the Second Amendment Foundation in Bellevue, Wash., told CBSNews.com this week. “It doesn’t make it good public policy.”
“Registration is probably not unconstitutional,” says Don Kilmer, an attorney in San Jose, Calif. who has sued two California counties for denying law-abiding citizens permits to carry concealed weapons. “There’s a difference between registration as a permissible regulation and registration as good policy.”
But, I saw an interesting parallel to British Gun law where licensing was introduced and eventually this led to a registration scheme. In the US case, there is an "individual right", but that is not infringed upon by registration. This allows for the nebulous mantra of "the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right", yet it also allows for registration:
In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun
possession in the home violates the Second Amendment,
as does its prohibition against rendering any lawful firearm
in the home operable for the purpose of immediate
self-defense. Assuming that Heller is not disqualified
from the exercise of Second Amendment rights, the District
must permit him to register his handgun and must
issue him a license to carry it in the home.
* * *
We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this
country, and we take seriously the concerns raised by the
many amici who believe that prohibition of handgun
ownership is a solution. The Constitution leaves the
District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that
problem, including some measures regulating handguns,
see supra, at 54–55, and n. 26. But the enshrinement of
constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy
choices off the table. These include the absolute prohibition
of handguns held and used for self-defense in the
home. -DC. v. Heller
Gee that's a godsend to the gun control crowd who can now say "regulation is acceptable, but we can't ban gun ownership".
Now, the question is would incorporation to the States mean that something such as Idaho's Constitutional right to arms, "No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition", would be pre-empted by Federal law?
Be careful what you wish for, it may come true!