That's a rather marginal improvement, isn't it? Suppose the potential term HAD been on the books as more than a year at the time. This guy paid a fairly small fine and served NO time in prison. He was such a dangerous individual that he went directly from the incident to serve honorably in the defense of the country, and for FORTY YEARS since the incident he has led a clean life.
How would your proposed amendment in any way make it right, ethical or moral for this man to be deprived (actually, "stripped") of his RKBA?
It wouldn't do anything for the poor man who's case is currently in court. That will be handled under current law. And yes, I do feel that if he is found guilty that it would be a serious violation of both moral and ethical law.
My proposal to modify the USC would be with the intent to avoid a case like this one ever being brought again, no matter how rabidly zealous the prosecution.
The key here is that what is being changed (and appearing to be ex post facto, but actually isn't) is not the "punishment" applied to a crime, but using the defintion of that punishment to determine who is a prohibited person.
Say, for example you were convicted of a small crime decades ago, and the max punishment was 6mo. Your sentance was suspended, you paid a fine. Under the law, today, you are not a prohibited person. Now say they change the punishment schedule for that same crime to say, 3 years max.
You did your sentance years ago, they cannot now say you must do 3 years. And they are not saying that. What they are trying to say now (if the court rules their way) is that now, today, since the crime is now up to 3yr, you are now a prohibited person.
No, it isn't right. And it is NOT just. But that hasn't seemed to stop zealous antigun forces from trying.
There are many things that are not right, and not just, but our court system has ruled as legal for the govt to do. Look at the (fairly) recent decisions over eminent domain and our private property rights, for one.