Replies

Or,perhaps,wait and see what the last court to rule on the subject (SCOTUS?) says.

SCOTUS is not infallible. But indeed if they do rule that "certain types of crimes" can result in the removal of constitutional 2A protections, it would be a steep hill to climb that likely wouldn't be resolved in our lifetimes. But personally, I haven't seen "certain types of crimes" spelled out within the second amendment. Same as I never saw the right to abortion anywhere in the constitution (even though THAT SCOTUS magically saw it).

I don't believe in this "living, breathing, founders' intent" stuff. It's either in there, or it isn't. And I don't see an exception in the 2nd Amendment that says provides any list of citizens that are excluded from that right. So if MY side loses, I would hope to work to change the makeup of the court to correct the obvious error. Just as we did in correcting Roe v Wade.

If they can't be trusted to vote or own a firearm, then they can't be trusted with cars, trucks, construction equipment, knives, bats, or dogs. So locking them away is the only surefire remedy.

The only reasonable argument I can see is to perhaps grant a judge specific authority to include a term of firearms (or voting) ban into the sentence itself. So a sentence can include prison, probation, and a specified term disallowing firearm ownership or voting rights. That might be on sketchy ground, but at least the terms and length of bans could be laid out and codified instead of applied carte blanche.

The only reasonable argument I can see is to perhaps grant a judge specific authority to include a term of firearms (or voting) ban into the sentence itself. So a sentence can include prison, probation, and a specified term disallowing firearm ownership or voting rights.

That would seem to hold up well to constitutional scrutiny. Even better ... allow prosecutors and courts to impose limits on firearms ownership, voting, etc. as conditions of plea agreements. A defendant in a criminal case who agrees to these terms as an alternative to a lengthy incarceration has no legal grounds to challenge the constitutionality of them.