Attention Required! | Cloudflare

I can not agree that all felons should be allowed to own or have access to weapons.

That wasn't a decision; that was a ‘brief’ - but if the felon completes their WHOLE Prison term AS (and only as) sentenced - then they have a point.
.
NOTE 1. The article says in its first paragraph, "at least when it comes to nonviolent offenders who served out their sentence."
NOTE 2. "In a SPLIT DECISION, the three-judge panel threw out firearm possession conviction of a Los Angeles member of a street gang" It wasn't three members so your comment should have said 'two of three' members.
NOTE 3. "a Los Angeles member of a street gang who had five prior felony convictions" - Any one of those 'prior's' where he did not serve out his term should have prevented him from possessing a firearm. That information was not found in the article. Is this an oversight by the 9th panel or intentional prejudice by the panel's majority judges? We need to see the ' Minority Report'.
NOTE 4. "...his offenses would have been considered misdemeanors rather than felonies or not even have existed at all in the 18th and 19th centuries." That's true but back then many offenders were just cut down at the scene and unless the offender had clout with the local authority the killer of the offender would have not been hassled, but praised as a supporter of the 'Justice System' (as opposed to the 'Legal System'). Now that is something the article failed to point out to the readers.
NOTE 5. "Thursday's ruling is a shift in Ninth Circuit law, and it differs from the view adopted by many circuits," - Lawfare, simply a different tentacle.
FINAL NOTE: Since the Gun Control Act was passed in 1968, anyone convicted of a felony – whether or not it involved violence – loses his or her firearm rights. Even then Felons that served their FULL TERM of imprisonment could petition for the return of their 'suspended rights'.

Excellent news!!!

I have said it multiple times on RP (and elsewhere). Once a sentence is completed, all rights should be restored.

If the offender is so violent and/or dangerous that they should be prohibited from possessing a firearm, then they are too violent to be in society to begin with.
1) This violent career felon will not respect the firearm prohibition anyway, so it is meaningless in terms of public safety. Yes, it DOES allow more crimes to charge with for increased sentences - but that should be moot as they shouldn't be charged with ANYTHING unless they commit other *actual* crimes , and then they should be FULLY prosecuted for those. The goal should be to prevent the death, not to punish it. And
2) Even if this DOES somehow keep a firearm out of their hands, they can still slide behind the wheel of a pick-up truck, grab a baseball bat, or just beat someone to death. Removing a firearm from a violent felon does not magically make them non-violent.