Oh, and how is that not a violation of the 8th Amendment?
How is the abridgment of their ability to own firearms, which started in `68, and applied to people who had served [or were serving] their sentence not Ex Post Facto, which is prohibitted to both the federal government and the states by the Constitution?
Part of it is incarceration, part is physical parole, and the remainder is selected limits on their freedom.
Nope — That's not the way it works.
So you want to kill all violent criminals? Noted.
(How many repeat offenders would we have then?)
I'm certainly not against capital punishment.
The people, via the legislature, can set the punishment for crimes. They have done so.
If they so choose, they can make people who rob 7-11s wear a slushy on their head for the rest of their life. Barring SCOTUS declaring its cruel and unusual, it is good to go.
Punishment, by its very nature, involves the loss of freedom. You want to pretend that it must be all or nothing, but that has never been the case.
Why is this confusing you?
As a condition during their parole, it would be totally permissible, as ex post facto only applies to the sentence. As a restriction that exists after the period of their sentence (paroled or incarcerated), you have a valid point, for those who were convicted prior to 1968.
I don't see how it would not constitute an ex post facto violation for those pre-1968 convictions.