Please clarify- your sentence does not make sense to me, I am no english scholar, but...
Are you saying that even felons have a 2A right to keep and bear arms and you support that? Again, please clarify....
The second sentence is clear-but not sure if you think the constitution is stating that criminals (felons), even after having served their debt, are protected by the 2A?
The last is clear too, not sure how crime fits in though.
Please expound, otherewise many may think you are advocating that felons should have the right to keep and bear in prison (or out) since they too may be placed in danger from “other” crimiminals....
I don’t want criminals toting guns “legally”-they proved their worth by being criminals, no need to give them the means to perpetrate their characteristic illegal behavior under guise of the 2A.
Are you one of us or one of them? Just wondering.
Sorry about the double-tap; key stroke error on my part.
That was federal law until the 1930s or so. Once a convicted felon served his sentence, his full sentence, then his rights were restored. Voting, arms, the whole 9 yards. Then for a good long time, until 1968, it was only violent felons that lost their RKBA, and even they could petition to have them restored (good behavior and all that). Then Congress, in its less than infinite wisdom, extended the ban to all persons convicted of any crime *punishable" by more than one year in jail, two years for state offenses, regardless of the actual sentence meted out by the judge/jury. Since the 1992, Congress has forbidden spending any money on processing claims for reinstatemen. Thus a guy, Bean, who accidentally took a some ammunition across the border into Mexico, lost his RKBA forever, with no chance of reinstatement, even if issued a pardon.
BTW, the Bush adminstration supported the inability to even take such a refusal to process the applicatioin to court. They said, and the court agreed that the law only allowed an appeal to the courts if the application was denied, not if is was never processed.