[SampleMan]

To continue punishment after the sentence is served is immoral and unjust.

Part of the sentence of any felon includes a lifetime restriction on firearms. That is the sentence, as codified in the law. Its not after their sentence, it is the punishment so laid out in the law for a felony offense. You don't have to like it, but its the law of the land and at least since 1968 not ex post facto.

Not if the duration set in place impacts those already convicted: for then you are altering their sentence — or are you going to argue for a Bill of Attainder next?

Already addressed pre-1968, next.

[OneWingedShark]

> Part of the sentence of any felon includes a lifetime restriction on firearms. That is the sentence, as codified in the law. Its not after their sentence, it is the punishment so laid out in the law for a felony offense. You don't have to like it, but its the law of the land and at least since 1968 not ex post facto.

You already admitted that the very law you cite is Ex Post Facto in nature in Post 53— I don't see how it would not constitute an ex post facto violation for those pre-1968 convictions.

Let's try using a simple chain of reasoning:

1. If it is Ex Post Facto, then it is prohibited by the Constitution.
2. If it prohibited by the Constitution then it cannot be a valid law.
3. If it is not a valid law, then it cannot be used [legitimately] to impose restrictions on felons.
4. You have admitted that the law is Ex Post Facto.

Which of these statements do you dispute?
You've already agreed that it is Ex Post Facto, so by what magic are you going to use to add to the felon's sentence abridgement of the ability to own firearms?