I think that the 2nd amendment rights is just a piece of the puzzle as far as restoring rights to persons convicted of a felony.
Jeff Manza, PhD, Professor of Sociology and Political Science, and Associate Director and Faculty Fellow at the Institute for Policy Research at Northwestern University, and Christopher Uggen, PhD, Distinguished McKnight Professor of Sociology at the University of Minnesota, stated in their 2006 book Locked Out: Felon Disenfranchisement and American Democracy:
"Ex-offenders face legal restrictions on employment, they lack access to public social benefits and public housing, they are ineligible for many educational benefits, and they may lost parental rights. In many states, their criminal history is a matter of public record, readily searchable for anyone who wants to know.
Research on the lives of ex-offenders has consistently demonstrated they have difficulty finding jobs and a safe place to live, reconnecting with their friends and families, and making their way in a world where they are branded, often for life, by the stigma of a criminal conviction."
So you have someone who say at age 20, is convicted of felony possession of marijuana with intent to distribute 2 ounces of marijuana.
Which for reference is about this much.
They serve close to 5 years in prison and have fines probably close to $10,000
http://norml.org/laws/item/north-carolina-penalties-2
They serve their time and however still owe substantial amount towards the fines, however are limited in employment, housing, parental rights, serving in the military, voting, holding elected office, travel, firearms, etc.
This person is now 25, can't find a job or housing because they are a felon, so say they live to the age of 85, the next 60 years they carry the burdon of what they have done at age 20 over a baggie of plant material. They have served their time, paid their debts, however are still stigmatized for their past transgressions.
My opinion is that if you have served your time, you have paid your dues and shouldn't be required to bear that burden and have all associated rights and privileges restored to you.
While my example is of someone who's convicted of a non violent felony vs someone who commits a violent felony, I think it depends on if you view the prison system as reformative or not, I do not. That's a different discussion all together.
We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; ...
I see no asterisk next to it that says *"Unless convicted of a felony".
And depending on who you ask the definition of happiness in 1776 mostly centered around prosperity, thriving and well being. Seems those all suffer with a felony.
As far as a family member's involvement in if Grandpa should keep his Colt or Cadillac, I've seen it go both ways, they are over involved and you have one side wanting to put Grandpa in the home for various reasons, sometimes for good reason, or nefarious. Families should be the first to intervene before the government, often the family has more right to take away the keys or lock up Grandpa's guns than a government agency.
