Seems to me that his punishment for past crimes wasn't concluded. His punishment apparently was that he'd be locked up for a specfic period of time, plus have his right to a gun and a vote taken away for life. I propose that thinking that his punishment is limited to the term of incarceration is a mistake.
By the way, what's disputed about the law? Has someone filed a lawsuit disputing it's Constitutionality?
Shouldn't that be imposed at the time of sentencing by the court hearing the case, as in due process?
By the way, what's disputed about the law? Has someone filed a lawsuit disputing it's Constitutionality?
Considering that the court has never upheld gun ownership as a right, I think we need to get over that hurdle first. And, considering that the court allowed ex post facto imposition of notification requirements under the guise that they were not a penalty, I doubt they'd have much trouble carrying out the legal gymnastics to uphold this law as well.