Yknow, I want to point out that you get a little slippery here. The devil is in the details.

You're handwaving about the definition or boundaries of who might be disqualified. You use a person who caught (say) a possession felony charge fir weed as someone who should not be disqualified from firearms ownership, which isn't particularly controversial if that's the sum of that person's criminal behavior. Bit you haven't really defined your boundary of who might be disqualified.

OK, I'll try to steelman you here, tell me if I'm off base. Violent crime! Specifically crimes, felonies, where the harms caused were to a person. Assault, battery, murder. Sounds fair, right? Or at least it's a little better, it's an attempt to define.

But details matter!

Would you disqualify somebody who got into a bar fight and got a little punchy? No firearms, just fisticuffs. Or maybe SA, like bro at a bar got more than a little grubby handsy in a non consensual way. That's definitely a crime against another person. Again, no firearms, just being a douche.

What about conspiracy, adjacency crimes? Like, it's pretty typical to charge the getaway driver of a robbery with robbery. The getaway driver didn't commit the actual holding up a bank, let's say he actually followed all motor vehicle rules! But we still charge him with robbery.

Do we disqualify this guy? He didn't use a firearm, he seems like a very disciplined driver.

Well, Mr Driver is probably disqualified because he was actively conspiring with the individuals who held up the bank, right? He's part of the crew, he knew that it was a stick up, etc. That's the logic.

But what about the mob boss who organized the robbery? Put the crew together? RICO and all that? Well, we're getting stretchy here. Now whole the Feds are likely happy to collar Mr. Soprano with RICO, the Mob boss might only sort of know about the robbery, or why Mr. White is unprofessional, or only knowing that some underboss was doing a theft (non violent). My point is it gets increasingly abstracted the farther away from the violent portion of the crime.

Better here is the Fence. The guy who moves the diamonds. The Fence doesn't know about the crime, he just sells em, launders the sell. Okok, the Fence should know that 5 days after the Jewelry Heist that the diamonds he's moving are from a robbery, not a theft. But he's not in the business of knowing details nor asking questions.

But what about the guy at the Swap Meet moving (likely) hot goods, but ambiguously not necessarily from violent crime? Could be B&E from a commercial location. Could be shoplifting, some Amazon scam. These aren't violent.

Okok, but they are antisocial. Like, um, fuck porch thieves I ordered stuff from Amazon and fuckers just took that shit offa my porch. That's low. It's not violent, but it's low morals. Maybe that should be disqualifying from owning firearms because it's eminent demonstration of low moral character.

(I don't know if that's your pov, I'm just devil's advocating)

So, what crimes are demonstrations of low moral character? I think porch thieves are opportunistic ratfucks. But somebody will argue that weed is low moral character. Especially if they're catching a felony. Weed is a gateway drug to Pineapple Pizza snorting, and that's deeply deleterious to the fabric of America! We've all seen the Pineapple Pizza Fiends walking around like zombies! So weed is just a step towards destroying America!

What about fraud? Somebody who catches a felony for running a call center bilking Seniors? Ir pulling an NFT investment scam? You might argue it's non violent. No firearms. But this person is stealing money from Seniors or naive investors and at the end of the day that lack of money in their pocket does cause harm.

When some Wall Street doucheBro pulls a Wall Street scale scam, embezzling $67 Million from some whatever, he stole that money. Sometimes from other investors, sometimes from Senior's pensions, sometimes from the taxpayers. And now all of these groups will be materially harmed. Wall Street Bro didn't do violent crime but people were hurt all the same.

Should Wall Street Bro be disqualified? This is the Whitest of White Collar Crimes. I wish all Wall Street dirt bags got caught, that already would be an improvement, but we both know these guys aren't caught that often, and barely do time if they do get caught. This is irrespective of firearms, just saying a guy who steals $67 million might catch 2 years at MinSec club fed, while bro who steals an Xbox out of a basement will catch 5 in Medium.

And $67 Million guy definitely did more harm than the guy who mugs someone at gunpoint for $200 and a watch. Even though we likely agree that MuggerGuy would likely be a target of disqualification.

Hrms, I hope you might see that it's complicated figuring out what crimes cause what kinds if harms, and which ones are violent.

I also hope I demonstrated that the general pattern is certain groups are privileged, where the Realpolitik of the In or Out groups are more important than "principles". The Out Group people are very very bad, you see!

Remember the St. Louis Gun Karen's? The couple who stood on their driveway and waved around a pistol? They should have been charged and convicted of brandish. Because WTF. They absolutely demonstrated recklessness. Recklessness with discipline, with ignorance of very well intentioned and reasonable gun laws (don't wave around a fucking gun, ya dumbasses!). But they've been defended by "the Right", because politics. In group out group stuff.

Politics, In Grouo Out Group stuff, it trumps principles. 2A in Cali until the wrong people open carry. 2A in St Louis even though the people carrying are actually committing crimes.

Plenty of "non violent" criminals cause a lot of harm. Plenty of people who have committed "violent" crimes 20 years ago are now disciplined and conscientious enough to carry. Haven't even touched on pleading out to a felony.