In 1791, there wasn't a single civilian prison in any of the states. People who violated the law were punished by flogging, spending some time in the stocks or a fine. Violent criminals were hanged.
So, as written, the 2nd Amendment protects the rights of prisoners currently incarcerated to have weapons while in Federal prison. Which is fitting, since most of them have weapons anyway.
This should have been changed when the Federal prison system was introduced. If we are going to completely abandon flogging as a punishment (and only Delaware still has flogging on the books as a punishment) then we need an a new amendment to allow for all free citizens to keep and bear arms.
As a bonus, this will quickly demonstrate to the public exactly what the prison system is, state-sponsored slavery for those people who run afoul of one of the 80,000 Federal laws on the books.
Of course, the quick fix is to make all crimes punishible by death. Then allow criminals to temporarily give up their right to bear arms while they are incarcerated.
No confusion. A "felon" is (presumably) a person tried and convicted of a felony. Hence, he's in prison.
Otherwise, he's paid his debt to society and all that, so why are you slapping this label on him? If we let a "felon" out of prison then (presumably) he's no longer a danger to society, so there's no problem restoring his rights. Tell me where I go wrong in this thinking.
BTW, to those who say that 2nd Amendment rights may not be infringed in any case, I like to ask about convicts, those actually in prison.
Thus missing the point. Of course the rights of convicts may be infringed, else we wouldn't even be able to lock 'em up in the first place! Even the most diehard gun-rights absolutist excludes convicts from his consideration, and you know it. The worst a person who says "shall not be infringed in any case" is guilty of is (slightly) sloppy use of language. But you catch 'em on it, congratulations.