The Founders had to walk the fine line between individual Liberty and the need for the people to protect themselves from a person who was probably a criminal, but not yet convicted. For this reason, reasonable bail for accused was built into our Constitution.
Clearly, some Liberty of the accused is, at least temporarily, forfeit to provide society some level of protection against the accused's probable future criminal exploits or his escape. Yet, the accused is given a chance to retain some of his Liberty.
This system is not perfect. Some criminals continue to commit crime. Some escape. Some innocents have been denied some of their Liberty through no fault of their own.
It is a true dilemma in a Free Republic. Is it justifiable to restrict the Liberty of one who has probably committed a crime, but who has not, through the due process of law, been convicted? If so, to what extent?
We should consider gun rights in this same vein. Should we restrict the gun rights of one who has probably committed a crime, but who has not, through the due process of law, been convicted? If so, to what extent?
I would say yes. The extent should be determined at the bail hearing. At the very least, the accused should be considered to be "in custody" while in the courtroom, and therefore, unarmed. It may be reasonable for the judge, at the bail hearing, to also decide that the accused should be denied, while out on bail, as a condition of bail, his right to keep and bear arms.
The point of the bail hearing, as I see it, is to judge the danger to the public and the risk of flight. Based upon that judgment, the judge must balance the rights of the accused against those risks.