Some states and counties make carry permits "may issue" so they are free to deny them for any reason. In practice the most liberal areas deny all permit applications except for well connected people. Infamously Diane Feinstein (a prominent gun control advocate) at one point held one of 4 carry permits in San Francisco county, a de-facto no-issue county. I suppose it's more elitist than racist, but membership of the elite varies by race.
In my state the process is definitely "racist" because you need to get the discretionary approval of the police, a group not known for being colorblind (to put it mildly), simply to posses in your own home(!!) anything that's magazine fed (i.e. anything reasonably modern).
The laws are also structured to make it legal minefield anyone who can't just get everyone in the household licensed (which ain't happening if anyone in the household has a record) and chuck all their guns in a safe. Sure, it's not overtly racist but there's s lot of less racist things that people complain about being racist.
It's all basically a poll tax on something that's supposedly a constitutionally protected right.
Assuming you're talking about a US state, I don't think a may-issue license to own a firearm that uses a magazine and keep it at home passes the test established by DC v. Heller and applied to the states by McDonald v. Chicago. Requiring a license is permissible under that standard, but it must be shall-issue.
>I don't think a may-issue license to own a firearm that uses a magazine and keep it at home passes the test established by DC v. Heller and applied to the states by McDonald v. Chicago
I am talking about a US state. I'm hoping they get a SCOTUS smack-down for the reasons you mentioned but I'm not gonna hold my breath.
