If Thomas is true to historical precedent, it was legal for a felon to purchase a firearm until 1968. I still think that it is a good idea to prohibit those convicted of non-violent felonies to be prohibited for at least 10 years after their release from prison contingent on good behavior and violent felonies forever. The exception is that anyone can use a firearm for personal defense or the defense of another.
The debates in the states over ratification of the Constitution often raised concerns over the lack of a bill of rights, with the right to keep and bear arms sometimes referred to. In at least one instance, a state legislature wanted such a right included, but with an exception as to those convicted of a crime. The lack of any such exception in the Bill or Rights as eventually proposed and adopyed by Congress suggests that the exception did not gind favor.
In FL a felon can keep firearms in their homes, and depending on what they were convinced of and if they stay on the straight and narrow can petition the courts to have their concealed carry rights restored
You're assuming they will follow the law in that regard. They've already proven they can't follow the law, and in most cases, they won't. They'll get a gun any way they can, and with the fact that Democrat D.A.'s, and liberal judges don't put real criminals behind bars, what makes you think they'd even enforce any ownership restrictions for ex-cons? Violent offenders are let right back out on the street after having been arrested for the 25th time. I speak as someone who worked in uniform for 25 years behind the walls of New York State's prison system.
“I still think that it is a good idea to prohibit those convicted of non-violent felonies to be prohibited for at least 10 years after their release from prison contingent on good behavior and violent felonies forever. “
What about “Shall not be infringed”?
That all seems pretty arbitrary. Kind of like the language in the 1968 gun control act, and many court rulings since. Either the second amendment means what it says, or it means nothing.
They should have their rights restored if they are not on parole. Once off parole, their time has been served.
“The exception is that anyone can use a firearm for personal defense or the defense of another.”
How can they use one for defense if they are not allowed to own one?
The most Constitutional solution is to simply not abridge a citizen’s right to keep and bear arms. Period.
Anyone who has committed a crime serious enough to justify abridging that right should already be in prison, where he has few rights anyway.
If he is deemed sufficiently rehabilitated to trust him to be freed from prison, then he should have his 2nd amendment rights restored as well.
Or the reverse - If he can’t be trusted with firearms, why should he be allowed to walk free? If he can’t be trusted with firearms, why should he be trusted with blunt objects, sharp objects, poison, matches, chainsaws, welding torches, motor vehicles, or near train tracks, bathtubs, rooftops, lakes, swimming pools, oceans, etc.?
They can all be used to commit murder.
Also, the government can refine what constitutes a violent felony.
Limiting citizens’ gun ownership benefits tyrannical governments - period.
Matt Dillon always handed guns back to bad guys when he released them, we should too.
If someone is too dangerous to own a gun they are too dangerous to be on the streets. In the old days a gun was just as necessary as a horse was to a cowboy for survival.
Why?
If they are reformed you have just rendered them either helpless victims or made them into law breakers because they they need to defend themselves.
If they are not reformed they will ignore this rule.
What good does this do?
Sorry to disagree, but you MAY NOT have it both ways; either “shall not be infringed” means unequivocally what it says, and means it for everyone, all the time; or it doesn’t, and all bets are off, and the gates are flung side for nearly any jurisdiction to “infringe” in any way they desire in the name of “gun control.”
You may have the fullness of your rights ONLY if you accept the fullness of the risks and responsibilities pertaining to them.
That is how The Constitution is written.