This could come back to bite RKBA long term. Going too far with "gun rights" can cause public kickback against RKBA in general.
Bad title corrected:
Federal judge rules gun ban for [felony-indicted persons] is unconstitutional
TX man was under a state burglary indictment when he tried to buy a handgun, challenged the federal charge
https://www.foxnews.com/us/federal-judge-rules-gun-ban-felons-unconstitutional
In a 25-page opinion filed in Pecos, Texas, Counts acknowledged "this case’s real-world consequences — certainly valid public policy and safety concerns exist." However, he said a Supreme Court ruling this summer in a challenge brought by the New York Rifle & Pistol Association "framed those concerns solely as a historical analysis.""Although not exhaustive, the Court’s historical survey finds little evidence that ... (the federal ban) — which prohibits those under felony indictment from obtaining a firearm — aligns with this Nation’s historical tradition."Hence, he ruled the ban unconstitutional as the "Second Amendment is not a 'second class right," as noted in a 2008 Supreme Court ruling. "No longer can courts balance away a constitutional right," Counts wrote. After the New York case, "the Government must prove that laws regulating conduct covered by the Second Amendment’s plain text align with this Nation’s historical tradition. The Government does not meet that burden."
I'm reminded of Ruth Bader Ginsberg saying in the debate on whether 2A was an individual right or not that if it's meant to enable people to overthrow the government, then machine guns would be protected. Too many Teabrained pro-gunners have gone kneejerk and latched onto that, not realizing it was a facetious comment which links baseline 2A RKBA with government overthrows and private machine guns--two things not necessarily supported by the vast swath of the American people. Permitting people under indictment to acquire arms might not rank much higher is some people's eyes.
Which is worse: Disarming people under indictment, or the catastrophic fail of RKBA? Like with machine guns, if RKBA is too identified with something so many people are likely to so intensely oppose, it risks the former. The Constitution is a scrap of paper. Firepower, on the other hand, is real. I'll sacrifice the former to save the latter, for the latter is the key to saving our people and heritage.
The truth is, there is a certain meeting in the middle here that could resolve all concerns, though the defendant in the case above is still screwed: Limit the prohibition to indictments for VIOLENT felonies. That is, one indicted (and there could be some nuances put in on that point) for burglary like him can't possess, but Martha Stewart prior to her conviction could have. (I would also support a similar distinction for post-release felons.) Purists would have trouble with this, though, because like libertarians they won't consider either social or political realities in their public policy positions. And THAT is why this decision could come back to haunt us.
I've noted before in response to libertarians, "It is not worth risking RKBA in the name of your futile effort to ensure violent felons, druggies, and nutcakes can easily get guns." In the public eye, indicted people are (too often) lopped into that same category. While reform is needed here (see my solution above), the 2A community needs to approach this matter carefully.
TDF INDEX: Cats, Guns, and National Security: THE DAILY FUDD index. https://catsgunsandnationalsecurity.blogspot.com/2021/03/the-daily-fudd-index.html
