I agree, but still have questions: "The constitution has wording that states the rights of citizens can be removed or restricted if they are convicted of a serious crime" - where? "Mental illness also precludes a citizen from owning guns, as it should." - who gets to determine who is mentally ill and under what sort of tests? What is the logic of the second amendment and how does that logic apply consistently to a ban on those rights for people determined to have mental illness?

The 5th amendment says nobody can be deprived of life liberty or property without due process. It can be accomplished by due process though. Societal standards and medical judgements determine if an individual is mentally ill, or incompetent. This caveat is relatively modern, and is done to try and keep us safe from "crazies". The logic of the 2nd is to have an armed citizenry ready to fight a common enemy if need be. Banning crazy people from arming themselves is simply prudent, I think.

I disagree. The 5th amendment says a lot of things, but it does not say that the constitution doesn't apply to ex-convicts. If saying that no one can be deprived of their freedom without due process of the law, it doesn't mean that once due process is done, all rules go out the window theretofore after. I also disagree with your second conjecture. Societal standards cannot determine the law, although they should inform it. The problem is that societal standards are not clearly defined, nor are they stable enough to form any sort of formal basis for law. The trouble is this: The entire point of the second amendment, according to many right-leaning scholars, is to ensure the right of the individual to self defense with a weapon. What is the logic, then, behind excluding someone who is mentally ill from being able to defend themself, unless, of course, that person is legally deemed dependent upon another person or institution? Banning crazy people from arming themselves may be prudent from a common sense standpoint, but there is indeed no provision in the constitution to make any of that legal, correct?

Here is an excerpt regarding felons and guns; "18 U.S.C. 922(g) is the federal law that prohibits anyone ever convicted of any felony to ever possess any firearm either inside or outside of his home. The federal punishment for firearm possession by a felon is up to 10 years in prison." That is the due process passed by congress. The same sort of thing applies the those mentally ill too, another excerpt; "Federal Law. Under 18 U.S.C. § 922(d), it is unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person “has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution.Nov 9, 2021" These are the societal standards I mentioned. The logic is to provide for the common protection against armed crazies running amok, as we have seen in recent incidents.

Thanks for your response. Those are relevant federal laws to the discussion, but they are not relevant, IMO, to the statement that "The constitution has wording that states the rights of citizens can be removed or restricted if they are convicted of a serious crime." I still don't believe that the US constitution has such language in it. Furthermore, I don't believe that any federal law could ever legally cut away at rights established into the constitution, according to the hierarchy of law. Now, with that clear, I know that the courts have been a mess over this topic, since it's so "political," but, to be brutally honest, if the constitution needs to change, there is a way to change it, there's just no practical means to do so as long as a significant enough minority of the states refuse to allow it. But, the most recent case before the Supreme Court of the US to handle this topic had a clear message, as far as interpretation of the law that, "The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not 'a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.' We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need." To me, that means that no lower law at the state nor federal level can trump a constitutional right, so, those laws that you cited are only applicable if the second amendment said something that could be interpreted to mean anything other than the right of every American to own a firearm. I suppose that's a very important debate, but, without clearing that up first, I don't think any of the well-thought arguments you made in your previous post can be applied, ...yet.

I'm afraid that your opinion on the current laws in effect doesn't change them a bit. They have been enacted by congress and ratified into law. Congress would have to repeal them. or scotus would have to rule them invalid to concur with your opinion on their constitutionality. There doesn't seem to be any grass roots movement to amend the constitution again over arming felons nor mentally ill. I can't see a new amendment to modify anything there coming in the future. Saying that the 2nd "could be interpreted" another way doesn't change the current legal interpretation. The 14th amendment also has language about rights of convicts that could easily be transferred to the apply to the 2nd too, IMHO.

I know that my opinion, nor anyone else's opinion, on what the laws mean as written, does not change the laws. But that doesn't matter. What DOES matter is how the laws are applied, which IS dependent upon legal opinions. In your third sentence, you mentioned the Supreme Court ruling gun restrictions invalid. Maybe you are unaware, but the SCotUS, less than a year ago, has struck down laws that infringe on the 2A with the decision NYSRPA II. If you are interested in the topic, I suggest reading up on that. Since that decision, the federal courts have consistently decided against the state laws regarding anything considered restrictive against the second amendment, even including the ban on carrying a weapon that was not used in a crime owned by a criminal (See the case about Patrick Daniels appealing the state of Mississippi). All of this stuff is very active right now, but the mainstream media isn't really covering it very much. So, I'm not trying to say that you are ignorant to the law, but maybe you've missed a few relatively recent landmark cases that have turned the debate totally on its head compared to where we were in the 2010's. As far as the language in the 14th amendment about making sure every citizen is given due process and equal protection of the law somehow implies that the second amendment only applies to certain people is just outright mistaken. That's simply not how laws work on any level. And coming back to 18 USC 922 g - seeing as how the part of the law to which you are referring being interpreted in the way you paraphrased was already struck down in federal court, coming full circle back to how laws are interpreted by the courts having everything to do with how they are enforced.

Yup, I am aware of the current scotus slapping states which enact laws that conflict with the rights of the people to be armed. The citations I mentioned however are federal laws that are still current. I was mistaken when I cited the 14th. I meant the 13th with it's provision for enforced labor for convicts. "The 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction." I don't think it would be much of a stretch for scotus to extend that to cover the the USC law denying convicts the 2nd amendment right.

That's an interesting angle. The constitution is unfortunately vague about slavery as punishment. I would think a reasonable person would expect that the term of the slavery would end when the term of the punishment is satisfied, but the SCotUS has never ruled on that. The state laws that the SCotUS recently shot down weren't defended in court through that argument, but that might have been a strong challenge, if worded carefully enough.

So you are saying anyone of any age in any capacity?