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.
Even if the *only* parameter of the check were the willingness of a federal employee to publicly stake his life on the fact that a particular individual would not come to harm, and if it were clear that the public had a right and duty to enforce judgment against such employee even if the government declined to do so, how many people do you think would be denied?