The effect of the law might make it harder for a felon to obtain a gun.
Only that they need to look in the back of a local newspaper at firearms for sale. People lie and have fake documents (assuming that the seller even asks), can you tell the difference?
Oh and for those who say "give felons a gun" no they'd need to get one in the same way as everyone else. They won't be leaving prison with a federally issued "Saturday Night Special".
You would have to be close minded not to see there is a problem
No you'd need to be an idiot, you're relying on a political powers benevolence that has defined this "infingement" to not encroach on the sole mechanism provided to overthrow that political power at such a time as the political power becomes tyrannical. Or to simplify, the wolf has said that these are bad sheep, and will only eat bad sheep, you have the wolfs word.
This doesn't happen overnight, and is incremental, you attack people who are socially acceptable first (felons), extend that classification (10,000 new felonies in under 10 years), then make others socially unacceptable (mental health, domestic violence) then rinse lather repeat (political and religious extremists...?, lawyers?, postal workers?). By the time the courts catch up, its so ingrained it just makes sense. Consider that in 1910 the people in the UK had easier access to firearms than we have in the current US. by 2000 they had almost none. By using exactly the strategy outlined above (admittedly by vilifying gun crime and gun owners, the US has vilified gun crime, and other classifications), until people who legitimately wanted firearms were looked at as deviant, and by wanting to own firearms became suspect by that very want.
At the risk of introducing politics about arguments about the body politic being happy with these, well are they really, remember make a classification socially unacceptable first (indoctrinating the body politic), then restrict that classifications rights. Also if the body politic was truly functional the way it should be, and Congress respected that, then would AIG et al. have been bailed out? Would a Universal Healthcare plan still be in debate?
Finally of course there's the elephant in the room that no-one has yet mentioned, self defense shootings. Lot of discussion here about them, do you want to rely on 12 people who may be upstanding gun owners, or equally likely upstanding Bradyites, deciding your future gun ownership, and your families regardless of any other punishment? If you're convicted for unlawful use of a firearm in self defense then you can't own again (even if only given time served as a sentence) and it can happen on something as simple as there was no need to escalate to lethal force (i.e. 5' 5" burglar in your home unarmed and not an active threat) you jumped the gun so to speak (of course you didn't know he was unarmed, just trying to steal you DVD collection). Now your spouse can't own while living with you, unless you and they want to take the risk that someday they're out without their gun or the safe is unlocked or you have the combination to the safe as well, the police arrive with a warrant and search the place (and hey you're a convicted felon, it's not so hard to get), find the gun(s) and you're back in the Pen for unlawful possession (constructive). But that would never happen to anyone on here right? If it did they'd never complain about how unjust it was after the event.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.
By allowing and supporting the governments ability to define a classification (or classifications) of those who cannot exercise the right to keep and bear arms, you are sacrificing an essential liberty (as soon as deliberately, or accidentally you cross that vague line, that often you may not know exists indeed people cross it every day they just aren't caught and convicted), for no statistically verifiable safety. If you'd like proof of this (crossing the felony line), look at the 1982 Senate Subcommittee report on the Intent of the Second Amendment (Check out the legal thread). Illinois was requesting that the ATF take on cases of convicted felons who were using sawed off shotguns, but the ATF were at that time busy entrapping Collectors who were selling four or more firearms as "in business" or FFL's selling to people who weren't going to be the owner when there was not a defined "straw man" purchase law. The committee themselves said that the action of the ATF was "constitutionally, legally, and practically reprehensible.". These people did nothing legally wrong, but many were convicted of felonies, lost the right to keep and bear arms, and in many cases they also lost a large amount of property too. As we know people need to justify their expenditure of tax dollars, if a few innocent people get ground up in the gears that's perfectly legitimate.
Hey but whom I to argue, whatever lets you sleep at night, right...? You can feel safe that felons aren't armed, and I'll lie awake concerned about government tyranny.
