I aim to please
So on the off chance you are actually interested, I'll attempt to further explain my position.
I've noticed that when I say I am opposed to certain laws, I am often accused of WANTING the presumed alternative condition. Not necessarily true. Rather, I recognize that living in a free society entails risk. I would rather assume that risk than give up my liberty in a futile attempt to legislate away the risk.
Firearm ownership, encompassing both our right to protect our own life and to own property, is a fundamental human right. As such, any 'reasonable' restriction must pass a VERY high bar way beyond mere fear or annoyance. Attempting to restrict activities that has no impact on another's rights is not reasonable. That's why they're called rights.
As an example, the media has done far more damage to this nation than any firearm through its slanted, divisive reporting. They intentionally pit one against another to create hostility, the rioting of the last 2 years being an example.
But I will never propose that reporters require licensing or government approved training to report. I will never propose they only be allowed to report one story per month. I will never propose that any story be a maximum of 10 seconds or 10 words. My annoyance at their behavior doesn't empower me to infringe on their rights.
The 2nd Amendment is no less fundamental or sacred than the 1st. My rights end at the tip of your nose, but it isn't reasonable to restrict rightful activity that doesn't get in your nose.
So with that background in mind, here's how I apply it to your proposed list:
People who have paid their debt to society, have repented of their past behavior, and no longer commit crimes should be welcomed back as full citizens with all their rights. I have no issue with, and fully support, people who don't commit crimes owning firearms, regardless of their past. Condemning people for life only started in 1938.
Flip side: those who refuse to rehabilitate and can't be trusted as a citizen with full rights should be kept out of society until they can be.
Fails the reasonableness test.
Interesting question. At what age does a person become a 'full' person? I'll suggest that anyone who can be charged as an adult for a crime is a full person and has full rights.
What does a person's age have to do with him carrying an inanimate object? In my Dad's time it was common for children to bring their rifles to school, leave them in the closet, then go plinking after school on the way home.
Fails the reasonableness test.
Convicts in prison have forfeited their rights,
Reasonableness test isn't applicable
A multi-part question.
Is the person institutionalized voluntarily? Then they are obligated to abide by whatever agreement made regarding firearms.
Fails the reasonableness test, but is subject to binding agreement.
Involuntarily? I will assume all due process was followed and therefor his rights are no longer in force, making the 'reasonable' test not applicable. However the institution accepts all responsibility for the person's safety.
Reasonableness test isn't applicable
Mail? Irrelevent to the question and will be answered below.
Whose nose WILL (not MIGHT or COULD) get bent out of shape? I don't know of any.
Fails the reasonable test.
While the White House is public property, it is treated as private property since the general public has no automatic right to be there. As such the White House has the right to decide who comes in and what they carry. The right to carry a firearm does not supercede another's right to control their private property
Passes the reasonableness test.
Another multipart question.
High school student: Assuming this is an age related question, same answer as the 10 year old.
Fail.
Carry submachine gun: Whose nose is bent out of shape? Remember, there is a higher standard than merely being annoyed or offended. The question also specified CARRYING, not USING.
Fail.
In class: Similar to the White House question. The school has the right to define the conditions upon which a person is allowed to enter.
Pass.
The public street is there for all of the public to use. Target shooting would require building backstops and other construction to make it suitable for use as such and safe for those next to the street. That would interfere with the public's use of the street, so other's noses are definitely impacted.
Pass.
Absolutely, and was common practice by other companies prior to 1968.
Fail.
Another 2 part question:
Drug crimes: should be done away with, so that category of person disappears.
Fail.
Buy sell 100 Glocks: Buying and selling private property has no affect on anyone else's nose.
Fail.
Carrying a weapon on a mode of public transportation is no more an impact on others' noses as carrying anyplace else in public.
Fail.
We have somehow allowed the notion to persist that it is worse to be shot to death than beaten, stabbed, strangled, or anything else. It isn't. We have surrendered the principle that guns (an inanimate object) is somehow 'bad'. The banners have run with this. "You can't be opposed to banning ____, you yourself have said they are exceptionally dangerous".
Whose nose is impacted by not enhancing a penalty? The punishment should fit the crime, regardless of the weapon used.
Fail.
I have a few 'Passes' in there, but other than prisoners and involuntary commitments (which aren't applicable since they don't have full rights), they all fall under the principle that everyone has the right to control their own property and you can't prevent the use of public property. So I will claim I am still consistent.
