Who was responsible for drawing ACLU criticism regarding failed b.g. Check bill?

[Eleanors38]

By now, most have read posts wherein the ACLU issued a warning about the failed proposed expanded b.g. check bill. The ACLU objected to the longer time b.g. data would be held in the NICS system if gun purchasers did not make the weapon buy from a NON-FFL dealer. The organization said such a delay could lead to government abuse, presumably a defacto registration system, data mining, etc. The bill allegedly contained a provision forbidding such registration.
1. Did the bill's protection against registration come before or after the 2-track data-holding time periods?

2. Why was a 2-track time period proposed?

3. Was the 2-track set-up eliminated when the ACLU objected to it, or did it stay?

4. Who proposed the 2-track time period?

The proposed legislation may have gone down anyway, but drawing warnings from the ACLU is not a way to begin legislation.

[AnotherMcIntosh]

1. All good questions.

[Eleanors38]

2. Clearly, questions no one has answers for, or not talking about.

[LAGC]

3. Gun control advocates are increasingly drawing the ire of the ACLU.

Authoritarian solutions tend to do that.

The ACLU has always opposed universal gun registration due to all the privacy concerns.

Way too much potential for abuse, and they are right.

[Eleanors38]

4. I find it puzzling that the diff. Lengths of time for NICS data storage

as referenced has not been fully explained. Surely, there must be players who proposed such, yet no "inside story" is forthcorming.