[Old Teufel Hunden]

“How about seeing them legally allowed to own cars, knives, gasoline, matches and baseball-bats?”

The Fifth amendment says that no one shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law. This means by implication that these things (life, liberty and property) can be taken away by due process of law. That’s why the death penalty is constitutional and why paying fines and jail time are constitutional. It is also why you can be denied other liberties (such as owning a gun or voting) by due process of law.

It is completely constitutional to say that a person will be deprived of certain liberties that other people enjoy because they have been convicted of a crime in a court of law.

I’m willing to say that it’s okay to take these liberties away from felons and certain liberties given back only by a review board. Owning a gun should be one of them.

When we as 2A supporters do not sound reasonable (like supporting a convicted murderer getting his gun rights back upon leaving jail) how can we make sound arguments (such as owning fully auto weapons or allowing concealed carry) to the public?

[DuncanWaring]

My real question is “If we can’t trust them with guns, how can we trust them with knives, etc?”

If we can’t trust them with guns, they probably should still be in the Graybar Hotel.

[El Gato]

That’s why the death penalty is constitutional and why paying fines and jail time are constitutional. It is also why you can be denied other liberties (such as owning a gun or voting) by due process of law.

The key is "due process". The legislature can't mandate it for all cases. It can be a recommended sentence, or an optional one. It could even be manadatory, at least in a federal court, or a state court if the requirement is part of state law. But it must be an explicit part of an individual sentence or adjudication. A bunch of politicians voting on a law is not due process.

Originally the '38 law exempted most non-violent felonies from the prohibition, but the '68 "improvements" did not.

[William Tell]

Old Teufel Hunden said: "When we as 2A supporters do not sound reasonable (like supporting a convicted murderer getting his gun rights back upon leaving jail) how can we make sound arguments (such as owning fully auto weapons or allowing concealed carry) to the public?"

What is "reasonable" about pretending that a law prohibiting possession of arms by felons will prevent the commission of other criminal acts by felons?

Perhaps you could point out a single case of a felony prevented by prohibiting keeping and bearing arms by felons. Just one.