Murder ought to be a capital crime; very few of those serving that sentence are repeat offenders.
If you murder someone or repeatedly use a gun inappropriately I don’t want you armed and neither do most of my fellow citizens.
And who decides 'inappropriately'? You? The government?
In particular, is pointing a gun at a trespasser commanding that he leave 'inappropriate'? (Some people, and laws, would say yes; others no.)
Now if you are saying that some felonies do not deserve a lifetime loss of certain rights I might well agree with you.
That's exactly what I'm saying; but let's take it one step further: do you support the imposition of further punishments for a crime which has had its sentence served? [IE Ex Post Facto & Bill of Attainder law.]
This is exactly what the GCA [or NFA, I get the two mixed up] did: it imposed the "prohibited persons" status on those who were already serving [or had served] their sentences. Therefore, given that it is an Ex Post Facto law, and therefore contraconstitutional in both State and Federal law how can it be that you would consider it valid?
Lawmakers (the People) are the ones who make the decision on the appropriate use of a gun. They have decided that pointing a gun at an intruder is appropriate, I agree. These are state matters and states do differ.
If you pull a gun to rob your fellow citizen - that is not going to be acceptable to me or many others.
If you use it to rob a store or a bank or a church - that is not going to be acceptable.
If you kidnap someone at gunpoint - guess what?
This is not difficult.
As it stands the loss of rights by felons is spelled out in the law. Most citizens have no problem with it. Extra non-judicial or unconstitutional punishment should not be allowed.
When you get the law you are concerned about properly identified I could discuss it. If it is not constitutional that will be before the courts before too long and it will be overturned.