Citation please for the italicized part? That's not only unconstitutional on the federal level, but it's also unconstitutional in most if not all states in the US which issue licenses for concealed carry. It's true that while the felony charge is still pending, the accused temporarily waives their right to carry and may have their licensed suspended, however once the case is closed and the person is found not guilty or the charge is dropped, their license is to be immediately reinstated barring any other disqualification. Here's an example from Florida law, other states have similar provisions.
> have in the preceding five years a history of violent behavior
If you are charged, it'll be assumed that you've had a history of violence (depending on the offense)
Then there's California:
> California law allows Police Chiefs and County Sheriffs to issue a license to carry a concealed firearm if the following requirements are met:
1. Upon proof that the person applying is of good moral character
2. That good cause exists for the issuance
3. The applicant is a resident of the county or city to which they are applying (or the applicant’s place of employment is within the city or county)
4. The applicant has completed a course of training (16-24 hours)
And why people will be denied
> those lacking “good moral character,” and
> people who cannot demonstrate “good cause” to carry a weapon.
I do wish all states would adopt California's training course requirement, though. As much as I am proud of my legal right to bear arms, I cringe at the thought of the untrained masses carrying deadly weapons they have no idea how to handle and care for. I'm also a proponent of mental health checks and domestic violence restrictions on weapons licensing.