I think I made it pretty clear that it was about doing a crime with a weapon.
Am I okay with reasonable gun restrictions? Yep- I don't have any problem with that. Do I also believe that Americans have a right to own a gun? Yes.
Am I okay with lifetime restrictions for gun use in a crime? Yes I am.
You really do hate the Constitution don't you?
Those two posts seem at odds with each other. Although Jitss617's contempt for the Constitution seems greater than yours, you're willing to toss it yourself for your own reasons... There's not that much room between the two of you - both authoritarians who are willing to toss the Constitution when it comes to their own pet peeves. Jitss617 just has more pet peeves than you do.
Do you think inmates should be allowed to have guns in prison? Do you think that someone on trial for a felony should be allowed to carry a gun in the court room during the trial?
In the United States, rights can be taken away through the process of law, and narrow exceptions are allowed. I see no connection with denying someone guilty of mail fraud who has served his time with denying him the right to own a gun. But I absolutely see a connection to denying someone who has been guilty of a crime associated with a weapon the right to own a gun.
And as far as Constitutionality- the Supreme Court agrees with me- and if you don't agree with the Supreme Court- well thats fine- but their opinion legally matters- and yours is just your opinion.
…[N]othing in our opinion(s) should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
Your quote says it all... Nothing in their "opinion(s)". The opinions of the Supreme Court are seldom unanimous proving that they are just opinions. One vote, one way or another, and their opinion goes another way. Even so, they explicitly excluded those other restrictions from their opinion because those issues were not before them.
There are really not many, but enough, cases where the Supreme Court has reversed itself. As I stated elsewhere, did the constitutionality of a thing change when they reversed themselves? Did the Constitution, itself, change? No; the "opinion" of the Court changed. They do not determine the constitutionality of a thing; they rule on the case before them and, in support of the case before them, they give opinions on the constitutionality of the key questions that got the case before them in the first place.
For the first 145 years of our country, Congress never considered that they had the power to pass a gun law. It was unconstitutional and they knew it. The left took advantage of the gang environment created by prohibition to act on their (the left's - as in Democrats) racism to pass the National Firearms Act, intended to keep powerful firearms out of the hands of black people but not out of richer whites.
For 149 years, there was no ban on felons owning guns - Congress knew it was unconstitutional. Felons got out of prison and their guns were waiting at home where they were supposed to be.
Only after 149 years, with the passage of the Federal Firearms Act in 1938, did Congress get the idea they could ban
violent criminals from having firearms. It took another 30 years, until 1968, before the government thought they could get away with banning ALL felons from having firearms.
It was never constitutional, and the government always knew it wasn't constitutional.
Since I don't know you, I can't guess your political leanings and offer cases that you might consider unconstitutional regardless of what the Court says but I'll bet you know of decisions by the Court where you believe they incorrectly interpreted the Constitution. Share a few, would you please?