I have always felt that once a criminal has completed their punishment for a judicially sentenced crime, rights should be restored.
To deny someone for life the right to bear arms not because a judge has sentenced that person to a lifetime ban, but because guns are covered under the commerce clause, and as such congress can regulate them via administrative policy, is a disgrace to anyone who speaks highly of individual rights IMO.
And i do not understand why anyone is fine with denying someone who has paid their dues for a crime the right to vote.
I have a feeling that if the prevailing thought was that felons tended to vote for the R candidate, both parties would be doing a 180 with respects to the question of felons voting rights.
And the reason that rules concerning gun ownership are so murky is that they are not sentenced actions. They are administrative policy. A court cannot restore what it has not taken away. Background checks are done by an administrative branch of the government. The courts have nothing to do with denying those who have been convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence the right to own a firearm. It is due to the power of the commerce clause, which allows congress to control the rules concerning background checks and the possession of firearms.
If the court has ruled ownership of firearms an individual right, it should not allow the congress to prevent former criminals the ability to exercise it based on past crimes.
And if someone is to dangerous to own a weapon, why are they on the street?