The 2nd Amendment grant all people a right to bear arms:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
However felons are somehow denied that right. Ignoring whether it would be desirable to have armed felons, then why would that not be unconstitutional?
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), majority opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited ... Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
(emphasis mine)
I believe the question of felons in possession of weapons in relation to the second amendment has most certainly been carefully crafted by the supreme court in order to uphold the power of the federal government to restrict the r rights of free people. There is no way to get around the wording in the second amendment. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed upon. So the question there and should be when does a convicted felon, be released from all punishments associated with his crime. Also it should be asked if convicted of a felony is ones citizenship suspended indefinitely because of the crime? These are some of the obstacles of questions needed to be answered, yet Justice Scalia as the other justices failed to address. Without doing so the reality is there is strong reasoning that felons should be given their right to bear arms.
