. . shall NOT be infringed
Those were some pretty smart guys . . if they'd meant to stick an 'except' in there, they'd have prolly done so.
Depends. Perjury, felony vandalism, stole a TV, then maybe i can see they can have gun rights again. Especially after a specified reasonable period of proven clean living.
Armed robbery, rape, murder, felony agg assault or battery with a deadly weapon, etc. I’m thinking they need to maybe just deal with it as another consequence of what they did.
If they are that worried about their gun rights, then it behooves them to not commit violent felonies.
If they can't be trusted with a firearm, kill them or keep them in jail.
/johnny
. . shall NOT be infringed
Those were some pretty smart guys . . if they'd meant to stick an 'except' in there, they'd have prolly done so.
That creates a whole new subset of issues of "who" should be able to own a firearm and becomes totally subjective.
Too many people thought it was okay to deny felons their right, now it has crept to domestic violence, "mental issues", restraining orders and what ever else politicians can convince the people what is "reasonable"....not to mention activist judges.
The 2nd Amendment is the only one that specifically says shall not be infringed, it is either a right, or it is not.
I say if it can be taken away for "reasonable" whims, then it is not a right after all.
The problem is that it is we, the law-abiding, who end up paying the price in the form of draconian gun laws, intended to prevent felons from getting firearms, but instead empower thugs like the BATFE.
If the Founders intended to deny freed felons from keeping and bearing arms, they could easily have included that exception.
My guess is that such a law would have been unthinkable and unenforceable at the time. The Founders certainly would not have supported a federal system for accomplishing prior-restraint in the purchase of a firearm.