The felon restriction would actually stand up to a strict scrutiny evaluation. Strict Scrutiny has nothing to do with reasonable restrictions. To pass strict scrutiny you have to show a compelling government interest in the restriction of the right. I am not sure that restricting ALL felons meets that, but I am sure that the Supreme Court would not split hairs so fine. Personally I don't think someone that embezzled from their employer should be restricted from owning a handgun, but someone that committed a murder, even manslaughter, shows some judgement problems and shouldn't have a gun.
Second the restriction has to be narrowly tailored to achieve the compelling government interest. it can't be over inclusive, meaning that misdemeanants should not have their rights restricted, though under the Brady Bill if you are convicted of SOME misdemeanors you can lose your 2d amendment rights.
Lastly, the law must use the least restrictive means necessary in achieving the goals of the compelling governmental interest. The restriction of felons owning fire arms is fairly non-restrictive.
Like I said, I think that the government has a compelling governmental interest in keeping guns away from violent felons and sex offenders, but not all felons. Here in NM our restriction under state law is only for 10 years. After that you can own a gun.
