Double Naught Spy
Sus Venator
I can also agree that at least some of the restrictions have at least a basis of logic but that doesn't mean that I support the restriction itself.
I'll explain why I personally don't see that as an infringement.
In my eyes prisons not allowing prisoners to have access to firearms is no different than an individual or private business "banning" firearms on their property. It's simply a rule that they have established as a part of accessing the property not a law that actually criminalizes it, yes I know that currently it is a crime (at least in most states if not all) for anyone who isn't specifically authorized to have a firearm in a prison and yes I think that law is an infringement on our (including the prisoner's) right to bear arms, the only difference is that as free citizens we have a choice about where we go and prisoners don't.
Their punishment is that restriction of movement and one of the "rules" of the property they are restricted to is that they are not allowed to have access to any firearms, just like they can't have knives, or street clothes, or even food and drinks that aren't specifically authorized by the property owners (the Government) or managers (prison staff). I will argue that the mere possession of those items by the prisoners should not be considered a crime and merely a violation of the rules of the facility and yes violating those rules should have consequences, even very harsh consequences, but just possessing them should not be a criminal act.
LOL, you are a classic example of what I am talking about. You can package or rebrand the infringement with some sort of rationalization, but that doesn't mean it isn't in infringement. You basically justified one infringement with another.
Last edited: