This is a tough one for me as I feel that sometimes it's a one time mistake of minimal severity.
For example if someone is convicted of a violent offence I feel strongly that they have demonstrated a diminished mental capacity that impairs their ability to manage anger, and the offence resulted in no less than 1 yr. incarceration, then flat out no, never.
But depending on the circumstances, in other words the offence was not such that it was a deliberate and seriously violent event as follows;
If the offence was such that they were young, intoxicated, and acted while impaired, and the offence was something along the line of a fist fight or common physical altercation not involving a weapon of any sort, and was not plotted or in any way premeditated. Additionally, that the victim was not seriously injured or suffered permanent injuries resulting in disability. Also that they have long since abstained from substance abuse and have not had a single repeat offence over say a 5 year span, that they should at least be evaluated and considered. But that if they should ever cross that line again their 2A and right to vote be indefinitely stripped from them without exception.
I do have a different opinion regarding individuals who have had a long, and, or repetitous history of substance abise, to include alcohol and drugs, that they should not be restored. People act irresponsibly and without consideration of others when intoxicated or under the influence of any substance. Therefore I opine that alcoholism and drug addition are condition that I feel strongly about when it concerns constitutional rights, as well as the right to drive.
As for a guy that was busted with personal use marijuana, did not serve more than 6 months in jail / prison, meaning that based on the quantity and circumstances, that he or she was not charged with intent to sell or distribute, then I think yes, they should be considered after 5 years of no repeat criminal offences of any type, in other word they have lived as law abiding citizen.
SMOA
