I see any kind of registration scheme as unreasonable.
It won't be resolved in
Heller, but I suspect that registration (and licencing) will be allowed as long as they don't cause "undue burden."
The problem for the grabbers is that if they don't cause an undue burden, they are not worth it for them to do.
Yes, registration leads to confiscation -- but if keeping of guns is protected, confiscation isn't going to happen. If registration fees must be low, they are not a the hurdle that the grabbers want. After that, registration is useless as policy. Bad guys won't register, so police would be foolish to think that lack of a registration has anything to do with being armed.
Personally (for those who are curious as to where I draw the line), I think most gun laws UNreasonable.
Possession of revolvers, pistols, shotguns, rifles (including semi-auto) should not require any government involvement.
Open carry of handguns -- no government involvement.
Concealled carry -- Licencing, not necessary, but I'd go along with NON-discretionary and a free/moderately priced course required (once).
Open Carry of long guns -- usually hard to distinguish "holstered" from threat, so unless hunting (licensed), they ought to be unload.
Cased Carry of long guns -- must be unload, but otherwise that's just transport and Okay (no silly concealed charges apply).
Machine Guns and Canon -- Something like the MA FID seems the most that would be reasonable.
Exploding devices (projectiles, rockets) -- not protected, state restrictions allowed. Ball ammo for canon, okay; exploding shells, nogo.
Fireworks of my Dad's youth -- possession of all allowed without gov't. Storage rules, and time/place usage restictions can apply.