Either you think lifetime restrictions on freedom are unconstitutional or you are just unhappy with this particular restriction.
If it is the latter, I stand duly notified, disagree with you, and we'll have to leave it at that. If it is the former, then there is a concrete logic train to follow.
Is there anything in the Constitution that prohibits the people, via their legislatures (both state and national), from punishing criminals and determining what that punishment should be? There is a restriction on cruel and unusual. I don't think this applies, if you do, pursue that.
You obviously have an issue with pre-’68 ex post facto application. Sounds reasonable, but that does not invalidate post-’68 application of the law. Cases have never been decided like that, so your assertion that this particular one should be has no basis that I'm willing to entertain.
People don't like to be punished. If they could choose not be punished they would, but they can't. Why? Because they are not first-class citizens once they are found guilty. The idea of differently empowered citizens may offend your sensibilities, but there are only two alternatives. That is to stop punishing criminals or completely strip them of their citizenship. I'll entertain suggestions on the latter.
Minor crimes should not carry substantial punishments. Life long loss of 2A rights is substantial punishment in my opinion. Want to change the application of that punishment to certain crimes? I'm listening. But I will not entertain the notion that no one can be so punished, so as to protect less heinous criminals from ever being over punished. The answer is to give suitable punishment to everyone.
I'm A-OK with life-time sentences for certain crimes that may or may not involve lesser restrictions with the passage of time. I cherish the 2A, as I do the freedom to come and go as I please, vote, and attend the religious institution of my choice. The fact that I cherish them means I take seriously the notion of stripping others of them. That doesn't mean I hesitate to do so when its required.
Has this government defined what that is? Or is this in the Constitution?
What is that specifically?
I'm just not familiar with that term. Thanks