You can see the resistance is shaping up around “sensitive places” doctrine and “good moral character.” I remember seeing a comment from Prof. Adam Winkler post-Bruen:
SCOTUS: Only gun regs from 1700s & 1800s are constitutional.— Adam Winkler (@adamwinkler) June 23, 2022
Also SCOTUS: shall-issue permitting, which didn’t exist prior to 20th C, is constitutional.
He’s generally on the other side of this issue, but fair criticism! I don’t think licensing can be permitted if the intention is to provide real limitations on government, and I don’t think it fits within the framework outlined in the majority opinion. The Court should have just thrown out licensing altogether, but I suspect Roberts and Kavanuagh didn’t want to go that far (as their concurring opinions saying shall-issue licensing is OK would indicate).
Most long-standing licensing regimes started out relatively lax and then got more and more restrictive over time. Licensing invites abuse from authorities, and future hostile courts will probably use that hook to limit the right. This hasn’t really played out yet, but I think you’re going to see the lower courts go along with a lot of these games.
Hopefully we maintain our pro-2A majority on the court, and Roberts and Kavanaugh will eventually see that licensing is an invitation for abuse. And unlike with marriage or protesting (two other contexts where licensing of a right is permitted), the ruling class are likely to remain completely hostile to the idea of the peasantry being armed. For non-discretionary licensing to work, there needs to be broad consensus that it should be non-discretionary, and you’ll never have that with guns.