[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.

[jeremiah]

Of course prohibiting a person from owning the tools of his crime trade is reasonable. I really don't know anything about the case of the husband under a restraining order, but if he did not brandish the weapon, or visit his wife with one tucked in his pants, he should not be prohibited from possession. The law disagrees with me, so I am wrong in this I fear.

[jeremiah]

I enjoy reasoned arguments, and throughout, you used reason. Continue to stand up for your opinions, and help keep freerepublic the best site for discourse on the net.