.. much like fees to register to vote. (Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections)
.. much like 'registration' to distribute leaflets (Talley v. California)
.. much like 'licenses' to go door to door proselytizing (Cantwell v. Connecticut)
Once the second amendment is incorporated, and has a level of scrutiny applied, any state or local bar to exercise of that right (infringement, per constitutional law) has to pass the test.
We know 'rational basis' is out (see the Heller text), and 'intermediate' is a stretch considering the language in Heller. I'm betting on 'strict scrutiny' (what the first amendment is protected by during judicial review).
Strict scrutiny means that any infringement of a right must meet certain criteria:
1. Must serve a compelling government interest- this interest must be
necessary or crucial, not just preferred. This interest must be concrete, not a generalization or vague 'maintain order' kind of interest.
2. Must be narrowly tailored- it must target the compelling interest squarely. Too broad, and it fails this test.
3. Must be the least restrictive (to the right being infringed) means- Another less restrictive means must not exist that achieves the same compelling interest.
So, given those criteria.
1. What compelling government interest that is
necessary or crucial does registration serve?
"Keeping guns out of criminals' hands" seems to be the most common reason cited. Funnily enough, there is little evidence that it actually does this.
2. Is it narrowly tailored to only affect those identified in the interest?
Since criminals can't be jailed for failing to register their handguns (US v. Haynes), no, this doesn't fit. It only affects, and can be held against, those who are otherwise law-abiding (and therefore eligible to own guns.)
3. Is there another way to achieve the same result that infringes the second amendment less?
A single law? Probably not. Mandatory, non-plea-bargainable sentences for gun crimes would be a start, though.
If any
one of those three criteria can't be met, the measure fails to pass strict scrutiny.
No right to keep and bear arms is limitted or undermined.
Straw man.
Nobody claimed that it is. No person had standing to challenge any state restrictions due to the fact that the second amendment has never been held to apply to the states. (There have been state challenges that relied on the state analogues of the second amendment in their states' respective founding documents.) Once it is incorporated, then various state and local laws will be challenged, and the 'test' decided by the SCOTUS will be the lens through which these laws are judged.
To say different would be to say, having to pay money to buy an arm infringes as that restricts those with no money.
I have a right to privacy. That doesn't mean the government must buy me a paper shredder. Nobody's asserted anything like that. That's the difference between 'may' and 'can'. Permission versus ability. Generally, government can't deny me permission to exercise a right; that doesn't mean it has to give me the ability to do so.
Why doesn't a Fedral background check not infringe and a state one would?
Who says that a federal background check is infringement? We're talking about registration.
We will know shortly how much incorporation will take place.
Incorporation is binary- yes or no. Or did you mean that yes, it will be incorporated, but we'll have to see which level of scrutiny is attached?
The only reason these laws are not at the Fedral level has to do with intrastate commerce, not the 2nd Amendment.
Have anything to back that up? If you look at the transcripts of the congressional debates surrounding the 1968 Gun Control Act, you'll find that it originally had handgun registration, but it was cut due to constitutional concerns. (Felons and ex-convicts have already given up many of their rights by their actions and those of the State, those protected by the second amendment among them. Disbarring their use by felons was agreed as constitutional in the debates.)