good point about restoring the rights of criminals. My impression is that while the process exists, it's based on the judge's opinion and very subjective. Maybe there should be a "shall restore..." process, depending on the nature of the crime?I'm not sure I agree with you on point #2. Do minors have a right to defend themselves, if attacked? If so, then to say they have no RKBA is fallacious. They are disallowed the exercise of that right under US law, yes, but the right still exists. There has been no due process of law to remove their lawful access to that right, either. The insane and the criminals, however, you are correct. The problem at least with the criminal, is that once he has "paid his debt to society", he must still continue to "pay" in some peoples' minds, by the continued restriction again based on the paradigm that if it is law, it must be right. At some point, he should be "made whole" again.
Blessings,
Bill
About minors, there certainly was a time--in living memory--when it was no big deal for a "pre-teen" to go hunting by himself, and it seems to be a rare prosecutor who would make an issue of a minor using a firearm in home defense. However, parents are responsible for the actions of their children and if they choose to prohibit them from doing something, it's not as if the children can sue them for violating their rights. I'm concluding from that, that the RKBA is only a priviledge for children which the parents grant based on their judgement about their child.