I resent the allegation that myself and my fellow NRA members are controlled, especially when the allegation claims that we are controlled by enemies of the US, and freedom itself.
"England has many gun laws and I am very sure you would be very happy there."
Ridiculous.
"You never did answer the question about an angry ex-spouse putting an ex-s name on that little black list."
I never saw the question. There are 2 ways that could happen. A temp restraining order could be issued, and/or a conviction for misdemeanor domestic violence could have occurred. The denial of rights that occurrs in both cases is unconstitutional. The power to issue a restraining order does not include the power to deny rights. The power is limited to issuing orders that are limited to prohibiting acts which the person the order applies to, has no inherent right to do. That means the order can prohibit contact, but it can not deny rights, or property. The fact that legislatures have created laws which deny specific rights and property in this case, is not justified, because it is simply prior restraint and a violation of equal protection under the law.
As far as Lautenberg goes, it is unconstitutional, because attainder does not apply and it therefore stands as a pure ex-post facto law for some. For new convictions, it stands as an unwarranted denial of right, because attainder still does not apply, a violation of equal protection, and prior restraint.
Regardless of the fact that the denial of right in restraining orders and Lautenberg are abominations, they do not effect the utility and validity of the background check. Those abominable laws can and should be addressed on their own.
Would you be in favor of a law requiring DNA checks to determine if a man is really the father of a child?.