[jeremiah]

I continued, to send a man to prison, for owning a tool, he did not use... DID NOT USE. We cannot send people to prison for owning legitimate tools, for what they might do, only for what they have done. Otherwise we step into the realm of thought-crime. As a matter of fact, I see nothing wrong with letting a released felon, own a firearm. If he is a threat to the citizenry, he should be kept imprisoned. Too many gun laws, causes crime. Don't allow him to carry a concealed weapon, nor a rifle around town, but a personal protection device at home, or unloaded and displayed in the window of his pickup, on the way to hunting grounds. I see no problem with this.

[DugwayDuke]

Actually, in most cases I don't disagree, at least for those felons not convicted of a violent crime. But once a person has shown a propensity to commit a crime, then I don't have problems with prohibiting that person from owning the tools specific to that crime, ie, a car thief could be prohibited from owning slimjim. I see no problem with allowing a bank embezzler to own a shotgun for hunting.

BTW, there is a Supreme Court case of passing interest here. I don't remember the cite so you'll have to take my word on this. There was a felon who was prohibited from possessing a gun in Puerto Rico. He was used as an informant by the local police. His identity became known to those who he informed on and the police refused to protect him. He purchased a gun and carried that gun. He was attacked in a public place, a bar I think, and used the gun in self-defense. He was convicted of possessing a firearm. The court ruled that since the cops refused to protect the guy following specific and credible threats, that his purchase and use of the gun was a protected right and the conviction was overturned. But the key was "specific and credible" threats and police refusal to act.