[G Larry]

404 article not found

[Hugin]

Link doesn’t work...

[Smokin' Joe]

...nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms

Just because something has been around a "long" time, does not mean it is right.

It hasn't been so long that the rear pickup windows at the local high schools were adorned with rifle racks, generally full.

If the owners can't enter government buildings with our firearms, how come our servants can?

Conditions and qualifications? What part of "...Shall not be infringed." eludes the author?

[TLI]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/09/27/a-rare-second-amendment-exemption-from-federal-ban-on-felons-possessing-guns/

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

A few notes about this.

1) If someone committed a federal felony, at least on the surface it is clear cut that they could be denied their rights as a natural extension of their conviction. That is, they could be prohibited from having guns or voting while in prison and probation or parole; but this prohibition is just a continuance of their conviction for the rest of their life, like their legally having to identify themselves as a felon for some employment.

2) However, if they committed a state felony, this becomes problematic. It could be argued they could just leave the state to again restore their rights, unless the federal government precluded it as an interstate restriction. But it could also be argued that a felony in one state could be a misdemeanor in another state.

Perhaps an analogy is for a doctor or lawyer who lose their right to practice in one state can move to another state, take the appropriate exam, and practice there.