Volokh Conspiracy reports on a recent North Carolina state court decision that decided that a man who was convicted of several non-violent felonies back in the 1970s, and is thus disqualified under state law from possessing a firearm, violates the Second Amendment. At least in part, the issue is that the defendant has behaved himself for thirty years, and because the crimes were not violent.
There is a strong public policy argument that non-violent crimes committed long ago should not be firearms disqualifiers. People do grow up, mature, and learn to behave. There is probably even a case that some violent felonies, if long ago, and with evidence that the ex-felon has really changed his ways, should lead to restoration of firearms rights. I am just a bit uncomfortable with finding a constitutional right under the Second Amendment for ex-felons to possess firearms, because non-violent felonies back in 1789 were capital crimes, and execution tended to interfere rather substantially with the right to keep and bear arms. It is a bit of a stretch to me that argue that someone who could be executed for a crime in 1789 still enjoys the right to keep and bear arms.