Actually, it can do exactly that provided it has a legitimate and rational basis for doing so. A parade or protest permit is a perfect example. The fire and building codes and other costly regulations imposed on houses of worship would be unconstitutional if the right were as broad and absolute as the language of the First Amendment suggests…“shall make no law”. Imposing those costs for what the government deems are public safety reasons is no different legally or constitutionally than imposing costs for the same purposes related to firearm purchases.
Before everyone flames me, I am not arguing that this should be done; I am simply pointing out that it CAN be done because as I set forth in detail in a different post, almost none of our constitutional rights are in fact absolute despite the absolute sounding language used in the Amendments recognizing them. All are subject to some degree of regulation. For example, none of you would argue that your right to freedom of speech includes the right to incite a riot, publish child pornography, defame others or falsely yell “fire” in a crowded theater (and if you did you would lose).
One other point. I sympathize with the frustration about the possible database capabilities and the potential threat of confiscation being expressed here and can see how one might even briefly consider positions like “They can have my guns, but they’ll get the bullets first” or something to that effect. I would strongly suggest, however, that you NOT express such positions in writing on a public forum such as this but instead wear a Molon Labe T-Shirt or something a bit less confrontational to display your feelings. If you are interested in a short history of that phrase, you can find it at this link: http://joefridaysays.com/Molon.html