If the 2nd amendment is an inalienable right that cannot be taken away under any circumstances, does that mean prisoners have a right to keep and bear arms?

If the 2nd amendment is an inalienable right that cannot be taken away under any circumstances, does that mean prisoners have a right to keep and bear arms?

The Supreme Court recognizes that prisoners do have certain rights. At the same time, however, the Court holds that prisoners
do have fewer rights than free citizens because taking away rights is a legitimate punishment, and because the restriction of rights
is necessary to maintain security in prisons.

The 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th amendments give rights specifically to prisoners and others accused of crimes.  I'd say criminals
actually have more Constitutionally protected rights than those of us who are law-abiding, not-incarcerated citizens.

Those rights exist IF any one of us is accused of a crime, but unless that happens, only those accused/convicted of a crime can
actually make use of those protected rights.

If the 2nd amendment is an inalienable right that cannot be taken away under any circumstances, does that mean prisoners have a right to keep and bear arms?

I think the suggestion that no rights are absolute comes into play here.

As Flapp points out there is court precedent for the limitation of certain rights.

This alien named wants the loco moco to be in him/her/it

Does that make it in-alien-able

If the 2nd is truly inalienable, then the courts would have no jurisdiction on it.

The word alien offends me. Change it to inmigrantable

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk

If the 2nd is truly inalienable, then the courts would have no jurisdiction on it.

You may have noticed, the courts have jurisdiction over whatever the courts decide they have jurisdiction over.