Read the decision, allows for registration, qualification and licensing.

Incorrect. It doesn't address those issues. Heller conceded the registration issues during orals, to avoid having registration be a consideration for SCOTUS.

They were trying to the the 2A affirmed as an individual right, and took everything else off the table to improve their odds. This is a foundational case, not the final deal.

The next cases will be around "reasonable" registration, qualification or licensing.

Each state should have amendments to their constitutions to make this clear that gun registration or licensing is not allowed.

In Chicago, nobody has challenged the registration process - you move in you are told you need to register your gun. You try to do this and they tell you that the registration office is closed. You ask when it's open they say "don't know".

Maybe some people consider it a blessing in disguise, the city itself preventing you from registering your gun. The downside is if they ever see it and they ask if it's registered, they can 'legally' confiscate it because you failed to register. Catch 22.

The problem needs some young firebrand to make himself a test case, and challenge the law through years of litigation to an uncertain outcome. Eh .... no wonder iit's not been challenged.

Heller conceded non-discretionary licensing:
And Scalia followed up on that - and went a good deal further:

My first impression had been that the limits of what is or is not a reasonable licensing system would be left to future cases. But reading that last, I'm not so sure. Scalia says that the licensing law cannot be "enforced arbitrarily and capriciously". But he also says that if Heller is not "not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights" he must be issued a license.

Which I think very easily could be read as saying that a permissible licensing law must issue to everyone who is not disqualified from owning a firearm.

In other words, I see absolutely no support in this decision for the constitutionality of discretionary permitting and licensing laws.

Please help me jdege, do you see the permitting and/or licensing laws as may be applied stictly a bureaucratic hassle for the eligible applicant.

Personally, I don't think permitting, licensing, or registration accomplish much good. Actually, I'd be prepared to argue they don't do any good.

But while I'll argue against all permits, licensing, or registration, as a matter of public policy, I won't argue against carry permits as a matter of fundamental right or constitutional law.

As to what permits, licenses, or registration I object to mildly, as being poor public policy, and what permits, licenses, or registration I object to strongly, as matters of fundamental right, I see three issues: possession, use, and carry.

Possession: I think it is a violation of fundamental principles for us to allow the government to know whether someone owns a firearm, or what firearms he owns. So I oppose registration of guns, or licensing of gun owners.

Use: I think the government has a compelling interest to regulate gun use, in some spheres. Laws forbidding discharge in populated areas, restricting the types of weapons that can be used in hunting, etc., I do not object to. I'm not opposed to requirements on how shooting ranges are designed.

I don't think it's any of the government's business whether or not you have a .50 MG. But I think it's perfectly appropriate for the government to say that there are certain places where you may not shoot it.

Carry: I do not object to, as a matter of fundamental principles, laws that require permits to carry loaded firearms in public. For the state to require a demonstration of knowledge of firearms safety and the law regarding defensive gun use I do not think unreasonable.

All of the above, of course, subject to the proviso that the licensing or permitting requirements be simple, easy, inexpensive, and most importantly, objective.

As for DC's licensing - I object to their requiring a license for ownership. But I object more to the arbitrary way in which they grant those licenses.

I am encouraged by Scalia's language regarding the requirement that DC's licensing system not be enforced "arbitrarily and capriciously". Heller may have punted on the licensing issue - decided not to fight in that area, yet. But Scalia seems to have signaled that DC's future licensing system be implemented fairly.