[supercat]

I might almost go along with background checks if

1. they were conducted by having the federal government publish the database in such a fashion that it wouldn't know who queried it and when, and
2. adding someone in the database required an identifiable employee of the federal government to stake his life on the fact that no harm would befall that person as a consequence of being disarmed. In the event that someone is killed or harmed as a consequence of being disarmed, the life of the employee who denied that person's armament would be forfeit, and anyone who killed that employee would be entitled not only to reimbursement of all consequent costs, but also a year of the late employee's salary. Absent an employee willing to stake his life in such fashion, nobody could be added to the list.

Seem fair?

[Iron Munro]

I might almost go along with background checks if

There is a lot to be concerned about with background checks but one thing I don't see mentioned is the content of the check itself. What are the parameters? What is considered risky or dangerous history or behavior? What can the Feds use to deny us the right to own a firearm?

Like everything else the Feds get involve in, when they declare a new right for themselves, set a new rule or acquire a new power they never leave it alone.

They immediately start pushing to expand the scope of their power.

So a "background check" today will probably be a lot different than a background check in two years, five years, ten years.

We know that Homeland Security has already identified Tea Party types and military vets as potential domestic terrorists.

Who knows if they might expand the background check to check if you are the wrong religion, an anti-gay, a military vet, a Boy Scout leader, a member of a WWII re-enactment group, be divorced, etc.

I don't trust any government entity or employee to keep the excercise of authority or power within constitutional limits.