“The only proper “restrictions” on firearms ownership should be restrictions on felons..”
Let’s take this a step further.
If someone has served their time and served that time for a non-violent felony .. Does that mean that they no longer have the right to protect themselves .. or their loved ones? HMMM?
_____________________
That’s a good question! I was speaking in general terms. Forgive my vagueness. I was referring to violent felonies — armed robberies, assaults, attempted murders, rapes, etc., NOT “non-violent” felonies as a general rule! thanks for letting me clarify.
I disagree... if they [the ‘felon’] have served their sentence then, as far as the legal-system should be concerned they *HAVE* “paid their debt to society” and as such should have their full rights and privileges restored. The term ‘felon’ as used in the vernacular is usually what would better be termed ‘ex-felon’ as [most times, in my experience] the person being discussed has already served their sentence.
What of misdemeanors that are ‘upgraded’ to felonies?
Or, on the subject of “violent crimes” it is illegal for a person who has a domestic abuse restraining order to own/possess a firearm; these restraining orders are relatively easy to get and require *no* trial whatsoever. Is that just? Consider that they are, as far as our judicial-system is concerned, ‘violent criminals.’
if he cant be trusted, he'll arm himself anyways and shouldnt be sharing the sidewalk with my family...