First I think we have to expect the police to enforce the laws as written. It is up to the grand jury or district attorney to decide if it is worth bringing an arrested person up on changes and to use due process in making that evaluation. Then it is up to a court and jury to decide if a conviction is warranted.
To take other courses is to avoid the rule of law or due process.
I believe in Kansas, a convicted felon who has served his sentence and is not on parole, has a process where he can apply for voting rights or the elimination of legal prohibitions that remain in place for firearm ownership to be lifted or to otherwise have his conviction expunged.
We can also have efforts with state legislatures to change the laws to allow full restoration of rights to felons automatically in some or all cases. The devil in in the details.
Do we want a two time armed robber to be able to purchase and carry firearms — if so, there is a legislative path to make that happen in a republic. This idea, expressed by some on the thread, that cops should ignore law breaking due to their on-the-spot evaluation of the circumstances is a very slippery path.
And yes, a 2 time armed robber either needs to remain in prison, be executed, or have his rights restored.
/johnny
It is automatic in Kansas that voting right are restored after parole is over. I think they have some 5 and 10 year rules on getting gun rights back based on the types of felonies where a gun wasn't involved.