Felons lost their rights including the RKBA when the US Court syste4m found them GUILTY of a felonious offense. It is the law.
This progressive push to give everyone a “do-over” is BS. It is no secret you decide to ignore the law and you are in line to give up your freedoms. Another little fact progressives ignore is that felons NEVER get caught on their first offense. By the time the system gets them, they have committed dozens of crimes that were never attributed to them. So they aren’t just being punished for the one offense, but for the dozens that they did also.
“Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time”.
From a strictly Constitutional standpoint, denying a felon the right to own guns is a violation of his Second Amendment rights. Nowhere does the 2A qualify that right; indeed, its language is “shall NOT be infringed.”
My argument does not take into account precedent or “reasonability.” It is put forth from a purely Constitutional perspective.
“Don’t do the crime if you can’t do the time”.
I agree. But there is also something to be said for “Don’t let them loose on society if they really can’t be trusted to vote or own a gun.”
Freegards
According to the Constitution, the only ones who can be interpreted as losing their RKBA are those doing constitutional involuntary servitude, i.e. prisoners. If you believe your opinion or the opinion of a judge is superior to the COnstitution then you are not a conservative or a believer in the paramountcy of the Constitution. How does legally but Unconstitutionally barring a felon from possessing a firearm prevent that felon from shooting someone?
How much do the laws against possession affect actual possession? One effect, I suppose is the lack of the use of holsters by those barred in the ordinances. Does than make you more safe? or does it merely satisfy your desire for retribution? or your feeling that people you disapprove of should not have any protections in the Constitution?