lol
Unsurprisingly, you just don't understand the case. One of the two key parts of the case was that Heller wanted to legally possess a handgun in DC. In order to do so, he had to register it; however, DC allowed so few registrations that the laws essentially operated as a handgun ban.
Heller didn't say "registration is unconstitutional, therefore the requirement to register the firearm is invalid." That argument would not have worked, and his lawyers knew it. From the syllabus of Heller:
Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home.
The appeals court also was very clear on this point:
Essentially, the appellants claim a right to possess what they describe as “functional firearms,” by which they mean ones that could be “readily accessible to be used effectively when necessary” for self-defense in the home. They are not asserting a right to carry such weapons outside their homes. Nor are they challenging the District’s authority per se to require the registration of firearms....
Reasonable restrictions also might be thought consistent with a “well regulated Militia.” The registration of firearms gives the government information as to how many people would be armed for militia service if called up.
https://pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov/internet/opinions.nsf/E23F1D1340E39A99852574400045380B/$file/04-7041a.pdf
So: His legal team knew they wouldn't get anywhere by challenging the power of the government to mandate registration. That's why he sued for the right to register, and thus legally possess, new handguns.
lol
The majority opinion in Heller made it very clear that governments can regulate firearms, including registration:
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
So again... Mandatory registration itself is fine. A registration process only infringes IF it actually bars legitimate residents from owning certain classes of firearms, such as handguns or rifles (e.g. DC essentially refusing to register any handguns).
Screeching "it's unconstitutional because I say it's unconstitutional!" is meaningless, and shows that you do not understand the basic functions and concepts of rights, Constitutional law and registration, let alone the actual history and jurisprudence relevant to the determination of the constitutionality of said laws. Maybe you ought to, y'know, actually read up on a few things before continuing with that baseless line of argument. Just a thought.
