[Ricky B]

We have moved from the apples and oranges department into chickens and eggs!

I like your example of being denied the right to drive by reason of a traffic offense for which one was convicted prior to enactment of the law. I think it is directly analagous.

I also agree that loss of a constitutional right by reason of conviction of a crime is a punishment.

The question then becomes whether posssession of a firearm is a constitutional right for someone who is a "criminal" (criminal being established by having once been convicted of a crime). That's the chicken and egg part.

For example, at English common law (and the colonists considered themselves Englishmen), conviction of a crime may have carried with it loss of civil rights. IMO, the RKBA is a civil right within the meaning of the term "civil right." I don't know enough about this aspect to expound, only enough to know I don't know enough.

The ex post facto issue is not before the court in this case. It may be subsumed in the Heller aspect that Mr. Hayes asked be revisisted in case he loses on the statutory interpretation issue.

If the ex post facto aspect of Lautenberg comes before the high court, I suspect it will duck the issue and not address it head-on. Instead, there is a good chance that it would interpret the Lautenberg amendment as applying only to convictions subsequent to its enactment, thereby sustaining the validity of the law and avoiding deciding the constitutional issue before it has to. That is a frequent practice of the court.