It does not seem like it could be more clear does it? And yet the “public servants” and lawyers have twisted it to their own purposes.
All wrong.
That said though, there are some people who should not be allowed to carry arms. Balance is precarious isn’t it?
If they should not be allowed to carry arms than they should either be (a) dead, or (b) in some sort of care (i.e. parents caring for their mentally-retarded adult-child). I reject utterly the idea that some infraction should end all rights someone might have, turning them into a second-class citizen whose 'rights' have been transformed into privileges bestowed by his master. (In other words: even the vilest felon, after serving his sentence, must be considered free/blameless by the law*.) To assume otherwise is to say that the law is never satisfied in some cases; and some will argue that being stripped of the right to keep & bear arms "is part of the sentence": they are wrong, it cannot be so because the 'law' which prohibits them is, even by the screwy definition the Supreme Court uses, an Ex Post Facto law, and therefore contrary to the constitution, and therefore nullity.
* - Granted, the sentence might be death, but if he should rise from the grave then I would have no objection to his carrying of arms.