This sounds a lot more like a States’ Rights issue than a 2nd Amendment issue. VA chooses to allow (some) felons to re-acquire the right to own and use firearms, whereas MD does not. That does not violate the 2nd, which affirms the general right to bear arms. The Tenth amendment (presumably) provides for states to abrogate certain rights under certain circumstances, similarly to the 14th-amendment provision for losing one’s franchise for certain crimes.
Overall, from the limited amount of reading I’ve done on this, this is an area that is still being litigated (loss of certain rights after conviction). Right now, the MD situation is still the law, so unless the law gets changed, the guy is stuck. If he didn’t want to become subject to MD’s laws, he shouldn’t have moved there.
Your last sentence says it all. I question how seriously this guy takes his rights under the U.S. Constitution if he moved from Virginia to a neighboring state that has long demonstrated such open hostility to those rights.
I think this skirts the issue. The issue raised is not what *is* but what *should* *be*. First what is a felony? Next, what are its total effects on constitutional rights, if any? What varies, state to state, and why should it vary state to state? If it is still being litigated, why so, and for how long must a person wait?
What are the purposes of punishment for a crime? What are the goals? in particular, the goals of non-life-sentence prison time?
From the other angle, what is redemption, and is redemption worthwhile as an outcome of the justice system?
I think, if redemption has value, then barring unusual circumstances (violent crime, esp. involving homicide, mutilation, rape, kidnapping, child molestation, treason, etc.) then redemption should be offered as part of the judicial system.
If we are saying in so many words that redemption is not possible we should be realistic imho on what to expect in the future from that person once he or she is released from prison in terms of recidivism.
Popping up a level, I would say that a primary goal in life in general is compassion. Without compassion, we are, imho, not much different from rocks on a desert moon, occasionally grinding against each other, but mostly baking in the airless sunlight until we become dust. Compassion is a quality beyond intelligent self awareness in that it includes an understanding that we are human in the sense that we all (?*) occasionally make mistakes, and that once we make restitution, that we can be redeemed.
Naturally much of this grades into religion and so can be contentious. However, one can still debate the practical and pragmatic aspects of the issue.
* at those of us who have not made it to perfection and/or who have not been transformed into machines
Shouldn’t have been buying computers with stolen credit cards.
Unless the man is out on parole and one of the conditions is “no guns” I don’t see how keeping him from his 2nd amendment rights is constitutional now that he’s a free man.
It says “shall not be infringed” not “”shall not be infringed unless...”. You can’t take away his first amendment rights either.