Custom tailored would be better, but still likely end up the same way over time.
Guidlines for time lengths would become established, and banning them for most crimes would become a formality they didn't even notice anymore. Some voters would cry for mandatory banning lengths after a couple high profile cases of someone with thier rights restored was involved in a shooting (even though in reality they would have likely done the same illegaly anyways as many felons do now.)
The media will paint it as if someone would have been saved if they were still barred from that right, just like they paint it now that more people would be safe overall and alive if firearms were more heavily restricted for everyone.
The end result is just a small percentage of those charged would see any difference some years down the road. It would however be a good first step in the right direction.
The reality though is that the purpose of the 2nd is as a deterence to tyranny, such as in the government. If the government has the authority to remove that right by arresting and labeling anyone prohibited at will anyways, the 2nd is essently crossed out in the constitution. It is replaced with the right to "approved self defense against criminals" and "legal sporting purposes".
Lets take more recent times for example when the 2nd was used against tyranny. Take the civil rights movement. Individuals such as Malcolm-X were felons long before they were involved. That famous picture of him holding a rifle in the window?
That was in 1964 after he broke from the Nation of Islam and he had both them and government officials such as the FBI involved in COINTELPRO out to get him.
That was almost 20 years after his first felony conviction. Wiki lists him going to prison in 1946 for felonies.
But being convicted of a felony was not a prohibiting factor until 1968, 22 years later, and 4 years after that picture.
United States Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas, considers him one of his heros.
It is fair to say that many notable figures and groups in that struggle would have been easily ignored, assassinated, or crushed if they had not been capable of defending themselves, or been surrounded by people armed and willing to do the same.
So it is fair to say that same struggle would have failed today. Especialy in light of "terrorism" laws. All blacks, whites etc involved would have been labeled domestic terrorists and crushed under foot, disarmed and silenced, backed 100% by the law.
People like to highlight the unarmed individuals such as Martin Luther King Jr. but in reality they were hardly enough to change things. It was armed resistance and conflict both responsible for change as well as most of the anti gun legislation afterwards. Martin Luther became the highlighted individual given a holiday in 1986 , and mentioned in school books, long after everything was said and done, and armed individuals had taken up the fight and prevailed.
In fact the reason individuals such as Martin Luther King Jr. are highlighted is to encourage people to take that route to resolving conflict whether it is enough to accomplish things or not.
Further, operations such as COINTELPRO conducted by the FBI would today include having someone convicted of a felony so that they have no legal possession of firearms available. That means standing up to the government would be a sure way to find yourself convicted of a felony and a prohibited person.
COINTELPRO targeted many groups the government wished to be discredited, and was not limited to any race ethnicity or idealogy.
I wonder who similar programs target today?
