Chicago judge rules statute barring felons from having guns unconstitutional

[SomeJackleg]

The judge isn't wrong - it IS unconstitutional.

The Second Amendment doesn't say "except for..." it just plainly says "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Barring a felon from having a gun amounts to a life sentence for them, just like banning them from voting does. If they are too dangerous to posses firearms, they are too dangerous to be allowed to roam the streets freely with the rest of us. Just keep them locked up or kill them if they're that dangerous. There aren't any percentages in allowing them to roam freely, whether they roam with a gun, a knife, a crowbar, or a brick.

Maybe see to not unleashing violent people on the rest of us instead of worrying over what sort of implement they're going to get violent on us with? Because if they are violent, and want to do us violence, they'll find an implement to do it with, whether a gun or a claw hammer. Just ask Paul Pelosi!



.

i agree to a point. non violent felons i can see them getting each and every right protected by the Constitution restored. those that use guns to deliberately kill, or kill during the commission of another crime not so much.

ones that there is no doubt that they intended to shoot a person and kill them should have to forfeit their life, not housed and become a financial burden on the people. the person they killed doesn't get the chance to live, so why should they have the opportunity. 

those that use one and didn't intend to shoot someone but wound up doing so and killed them or not, should spend a sufficient time behind bars and not be allowed to have own one.
those that lost their head in say  fight and pulled their piece and killed or just wounded someone shouldn't have one.

basically anyone that uses one and kills or wounds someone shouldn't be allowed own one, and it depends on the intent when one was used, if they should forfeit their life.