On the heels of the Supreme Court ruling that upheld the Second Amendment, an ex convict is challenging his arrest for possession of a firearm. He is going after the Federal law which bars felons from owning guns.
Read the article, and then answer the poll.
To me, this is a tough question to answer, but at the heart of my answer is the supposition that, once a convicted felon has paid his debt to society, he is free to start is life over, and be part of society once more. However, that supposition is a bit simplistic, since the situation itself is somewhat complicated. For instance, if someone went to prison for smoking marijuana, versus someone who just got out after 20 years for holding up a liquor store and shooting the owner. Since these are 2 different situations, don't you think that might require 2 different answers? And what if the guy who did 20 years for the shooting has really rehabilitated himself? Would he then be entitled to all the rights and responsibilities that come from being a citizen? But what if he has not been rehabilitated? On the other hand, if we keep him from rights that all other citizens are entitled to, then as a non citizen, and an outcast, wouldn't he then be more inclined to commit more crime, if not given a chance?
As you can see, this whole question opens up a pretty big can of worms. The best solution that I can think of is that, if an ex felon wants a gun, that decision should be made by some kind of review board, which would review his case, and either grant him the right to own a gun or deny it, based on that review. I know, its not perfect, and if someone has a better answer, I would like to hear it. My support for my position is weak, and a good argument, one way or the other, could convince me to change my mind.
Discussion?