[Alabama Shooter]

As a general proposition, it would not violate someone's civil rights for the state to require someone to prove their qualifications to perform the essential functions of a job before they may hold a license to do so. Having a clean record, absent of any convictions for child abuse, child endangerment, child molestation, etc., is a perfectly valid requirement to have a license to run a day-care center or a nanny's license (if they have those), for example. It's also unrelated to any membership in the protected classes.

However, job requirements, background checks, and licensing requirements could be tricky. For example, if the background check that I want to run on someone checks for "arrests" rather than "convictions," that can be problematic. Why? Historically, minority groups have gotten arrested more than whites. That means that if I reject a protected-class applicant for having more arrests (but not convictions) than another non-protected applicant, and get sued, a court could conclude that because minority groups get arrested more often than whites, I'm simply using "arrests" rather than "convictions" so that I have an excuse to not hire minorities.

For RKBA purposes, though, the courts will stick with the framework already established. While employment discrimination laws are rooted in constitutional law (as all laws need to be), they follow a different analysis.

Then I would say as a general proposition then it would not violate their rights to owning a gun by ensuring that they are not a prohibited person before purchasing a firearm. I see it as the same kind of analysis.

If the government can set the conditions for legal firearm ownership then they can set the conditions for the purchase. Enforcement for following the law needs to be upon the purchaser to prove legal ownership and not the seller.

They already have the authority to regulate trade under the ICC so really the only opposition is that we don't want them to do it. That is a tough sell with them throwing up dead babies on the TV every couple of hours that are not even a part of the equation we are discussing.

I think we are dancing about, and ignoring the critical part of the discussion. Its not about whether background checks work, or if they are, or are not a good thing. It is about whether the govt has the legal authority to compel us all to use them. Certainly they can compel us, by passing a law, and enforcing it, but do they have the right to do it?

I think establishing the legal authority to do a thing is very important that is why I have tried to make that the focus of the discussion. Short of having a sheriff standing over you with a weapon (even then) no one can compel you to follow the law.

See this trend in other areas of our lives. Just because something is a good idea, and might have benefits for us as individuals, or for society in general, is it our govt's place to compel us to do it by force of law? And is it their right in general, or just for guns, and some other specific things, because they are "dangerous"?

It depends.

Wearing seatbelts is a good idea. Wearing a motorcycle helmet is a good idea. Having healthing insureance is a good idea. And we got along fairly well, I think, for generations with these good ideas. But today, it is the LAW that you MUST do or have this. And if you do not, even though there is no injury, you get punished by the govt for not having it. IS that right?

Depends upon what you mean by "right". When people go do things that endanger themselves like fail to wear a seatbelt or a helmet and then injure themselves severely it affects me financially and possibly other ways as well. I pay taxes, required insurance, medicare, medicade, and various other programs that pay to repair stupid people who go out and do stupid things with their bodies and equipment in public places. Then I might even have to pay to sustain them for another 20-50 years of their lives as they may have disabled themselves. If I did not pay these taxes and I did not know these people I would probably simply laugh at their foolishness. Sort of the same way I laugh at people who refuse to use more energy efficient light bulbs. These laws if they are complied with help keep my from the poverty that the other laws are trying to bring about by giving my resources to the feeble minded.

There is a "study" that claims that 99%+ of all criminals ate bread, or a bread product within 30 days of commiting the crimes. Yet, at this time, no one is screaming we need to ban bread, or pass a background check to buy a loaf.

Why not?
after all, if it saves just one sandwich......

I am not sure what the rhetorical statement is asking?