To address the OP's question: I don't have a problem with the loss of rights as a result of felonious behavior so long as there is a clear process for restoring them.
"Petitions for removal of the federal firearms disability are directed to the Attorney General pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 925(c). The authority to review such petitions has been delegated by the Attorney General to the Director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. See 27 C.F.R. § 478.144. However, even though there is a federal statute and a regulatory procedure for restoration petitions, Congress continuously refuses to appropriate funds for ATF to review such petitions. By denying funding, Congress effectively suspends the statutory grant of jurisdiction to the federal district courts to review convicted felons' applications for restoration of their firearms privileges." ( http://www.h82lose.com/content/areas...storations.htm )
Herein lies the real problem. Congress is continually blocking due process, which is a clear violation of a felon's Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.
Please cite what case you're referring to that defines "well-regulated" in this fashion. As far as I know, the U.S. Supreme Court (SCOTUS) has ruled on the meaning and scope of the Second Amendment exactly three (3) times in the 20th and 21st centuries and has said no such thing. Further, SCOTUS has never addressed the issue of the revocation of the firearms rights of felons.
Originally Posted by Spartacus
Here are the only times that SCOTUS has had anything to say on the Second Amendement in the last century:
1. U.S. v. Miller, 1939. (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=307&invol=174)
2. D.C. v. Heller, 2008. ( http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/dc-v-heller/ )
3. Chicago v. McDonald, 2010. (http://www.scotusblog.com/case-files...ty-of-chicago/ )
Of these, Heller dealt most directly and completely with the specific meaning of the text of the Second Amendment. Of the other two cases, Miller defined the "militia" in these terms:
"the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."
There is no mention of "law-abiding" anywhere.
In Heller, Justice Scalia addressed the term "well-regulated" thusly:
"Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”)."
If we go back to the very founding of our country, the only substantive addition to that list is Presser v. Illinois from 1886 ( http://www.guncite.com/court/fed/sc/116us252.html ), which states fairly clearly:
"It is contended that the Illinois act does not conflict with the act of Congress until the militia is actually mustered into the service of the United States. This is a mistaken view of the Constitution and of the object and intent of the law of 1792. The power of Congress to organize the militia is not limited to a period of war, or to such time as they may be employed in the service of the United States. It is only the power to govern them that is thus limited. The clause in the Constitution authorizing the President to call out the militia and put it into the service of the United States is separate and distinct from that which authorizes Congress to legislate for its organization, arming, and discipline. The manifest intent of the Constitution is to provide for an organized militia in time of peace, which may be called upon to execute the laws of the Union, and thus dispense with a standing army."
About the closest thing I've seen recently that even comes close to the topic is the Democracy Restoration Act ( http://www.brennancenter.org/content...n_act_of_2008/ ), which attempts to restore the voting rights of felons. There have been a variety of cases at the state level about various rights of felons as well, but where SCOTUS is concerned, the pickings are much more slim.
---------- Post added at 09:30 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:28 PM ----------
I think you mean "hoplophobia". "-philia" is "the love of", where "-phobia" is "the (irrational) fear of".
Originally Posted by Spartacus