This is a question that some people are asking after a federal judge in Chicago (of all places!) has ruled that denying felons who have completed their punishment the right to keep and bear arms is unconstitutional.

Wow.

The prohibition on felons (and in some States, even those with misdemeanors) owning weapons has been questioned by many people over the past decades. Yet it is found to be the law universally in the States: not just “federal law” but law passed and enforced in the individual States.

But is not the question in our headline today actually the wrong question? After all, every day, hundreds if not thousands of felons carry and use firearms to do their work: preying on other people. Most of those times, the felon is using the weapon against people who themselves are unarmed.

And of course, we need to ask, can anyone really keep felons from having guns? Individuals? Governments at any level? Really? Many of us doubt that is possible, as decades of experience in places like New York City and the District of Columbia have demonstrated. And as seen in various foreign places, even a strong, totalitarian government seems incapable of doing that. Especially since many of the felons (both adjudicated and not!) seem to gravitate towards government employment.

But the black robe has a very important point: we do NOT take away other constitutionally protected rights from felons. They still – even after adjudication and being found guilty – have rights of free speech, rights to a jury trial, protection from double jeopardy, and other freedoms. They do, to some extent, lose many of the rights of free association if they are confined, but even that is not a complete denial. The prohibition on owning and carrying firearms (and other weapons) is far more broad and near absolute.

The denial of 2nd Amendment rights also generally extends well beyond the time of their incarceration and parole: it is often lifelong unless the felon is able to get a pardon. Which is relatively rare.

And the denial is often applied even for those who are not convicted of crimes of violence or threatened violence. In many States, courtesy of red-flag laws, the mere accusation of certain crimes automatically makes someone a felon unless they surrender their weapons to the authorities. And sometimes it doesn’t even take a formal accusation or charge: just the fear that someone may be a threat to themselves or others.

(Yes, such laws are red flags – but not in the sense the lawmakers intend.)

So what is the right answer? Or rather, the right question? Undoubtedly, we could enjoy discussing all the alternatives to what is now being done.

It is argued that guns are so dangerous that it is in the best interests of the public to deny the fundamental, basic human right of self-defense. Really? History shows that speech and free association can be as deadly to others, as demagogues whip crowds into mobs who attack and kill the “enemy” – often with their bare hands or convenient stones and bricks. No “weapon” needed.

Perhaps the judge was also paying attention to another denial of rights of felons: the denial of voting rights. More and more States have passed laws to restore the voting rights of felons. Sometimes even while the felon is still in prison. This, we are told, is an essential human right.

We would argue that the right to self-defense is far more essential and more fundamental. And also that voting in the wrong laws and the wrong people into power has also been deadly.

So perhaps a better question would be this: What class or type of felon should be denied the Second Amendment rights? As they are denied the freedom of association and travel? Until they have completed their sentence?

Another would be this: Should taking away Second Amendment rights be a specific part of a sentence after conviction, which includes the duration of the punishment? That rights would be restored at the same time as other rights? When released from prison? Or from parole?

At this quick glance, there appears to be no simple questions or answers. At least in our current political and social climate.

But perhaps an important, if not directly related, question would be this one: Knowing that an innocent person being armed is a very important factor in keeping the person (and even their family, neighbors, and bystanders) from becoming victims of violence. Why does government work so very hard at making it harder and harder for peaceful, law abiding (non-felon) people to arm themselves?