That’s one of the points of the decision being questioned by The New York Sun:
The Supreme Court’s historic decision on the Second Amendment could make millions of felons eligible to own guns.
Under current federal law, the vast majority of felons are prohibited from so much as touching a gun or ammunition, on pain of punishment of up to 10 years in prison.
The only felons who can lawfully retain a gun, according to exceptions written into the statute, are those convicted of anti-trust violations or crimes involving unfair trading practices.
In interviews, several legal experts say that lower court judges should interpret the Supreme Court’s decision in Heller to permit non-violent felons to own weapons.
“Why not? I can’t see why they shouldn’t have gun rights if they don’t have a record of violent crime,” a lawyer who financed the Heller case, Robert Levy, said. “If the nature of their crime has nothing to do with the commission of violence than it’s a pretty strange punishment that would deprive ex-felons of the ability to defend themselves.”
Interesting question. Should certain types of felons be able to own a gun? While there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that anyone convicted of certain felonies, burglaries, assaults involving weapons, robberies, rape, etc., (note the etcetera part – the list could go on and on) should lose their absolute right to be able to buy a gun, I have to wonder why someone who writes a bad check that amounts to a felony falls into the same category.
The article brings up another interesting question: Under federal law any conviction for any degree of domestic violence can cost you your right to own or be in possession of a gun.
I’ve had a problem with this one from the beginning. It’s far, far too easy for a spouse to claim that his or her husband or wife grabbed them, shook them, threw something at them, pulled their hair, and so on and without any evidence to back that claim up at all and a person can find themselves with that dreaded “domestic violence” label stuck to them for life.
No more gun ownership for you, pal.
And, no, I’m not saying that if you beat your wife – or husband – that there shouldn’t be consequenses. Of course there should. But the way the law is written now a simple argument in which one or the other reaches out and takes their partner by the arm is translated into an assault equal to a genuine drubbing.
That law is another of the many knee jerk laws that are enacted in response to hot button issues. It wasn’t thought through.
Anyway, the court’s decision is certain to muddy the waters in many areas concerning gun ownership for a while and these are but two of them.
Back to the question: Should felons lose their right to keep and bear?