The question goes back to the Constitution itself. Where does it line out that someone convicted of a crime loses constitutional rights?
There is plenty of strength to both sides of the argument - if someone’s crime was non-violent - then why should it result in the loss of constitutional rights? On the other hand - one makes the decision to commit a felony - the loss of rights, including 2nd Amendment rights, should make one reflect on that decision.
Yet there is another aspect as well - someone gets caught up in something - they may not have been directly responsible, but because of the position, end up with felony charges as part of the “blow-back”... they lose firearm rights?
Some food for thought and discussion.
Should we also take that into consideration before we speak, exercise our religious beliefs or engage in free commerce?
Today, it appears so.
It is now acceptable to take away 2nd A rights for accusations of stalkiing, midemeanor convictions, mental stability judgements etc....
How far can this go, is the 2nd A a God givien right or not?
The Goernment we supposedly authourize by our consent is taking those rigths away at an alarming rate, are they really rights or no?
A century ago this wouldn’t even have been a consideration.
A while back I found some old prison records from shortly after the civil war. Among the records were items returned to released inmates. Things like knives, clubs, rifles, and revolvers were listed.
For me it’s about the punishment fitting the crime.
Violent felon - lose 2a rights. Non-violent felon - you don’t. Punishment ought to fit the crime.