You misunderstood me. I was referring to the precedent set by converting a right into a privilege.
I do have to plead a certain amount of ignorance here. I thought the Brady Law was simply a waiting period for all buyers, plus a denial of the automatic right to own a gun to certain felons. Neither, in my opinion, would violate the Second Amendment. (The language of the Second Amendment says "of the people," which suggests a certain concept of the good citizen. That some small class of dangerous people can be kept from owning weapons. There is no such terminology ("of the people") in, say, the First Amendment. A law forbidding an ex-felon to speak freely on public issues would be blatantly unconstitutional.)
If the Brady Law goes beyond what I've described, then I'd agree that it does, or might, violate the Second Amendment.
But I would still point out that it was enacted a decade ago by a Democratic Congress. I know it was renewed, but that's different. To me, if you want to show that we aren't making progress on gun rights, let alone show that we're losing on gun rights, you'd have to show that new laws or regulations that are now occurring, or about to occur, serious enough to outweigh the progress we've clearly been making, currently and much more recently than Brady, on concealed-carry.