True, it seems that several states actually allow felons to vote after they are released. Vermont and Maine allow inmates to vote, even.
Personally, I believe with few exceptions, once a felon has served their time (jail and probationary period) and paid any required restitution, there's no reason they should not be able to vote, purchase a firearm, get a job - just like any other free person.
I guess no one has lodged a significant legal challenge to the denial of voting rights, or gun rights, after release. Or if they have, it hasn't made the news.
As for the insane, if someone does not have the mental capacity of an adult, then they should not have the same rights granted to adults.
To your question, I guess the 2nd Amendment is subject to some interpretation. There are arms that are (and probably should be) only available for military use, or at least restricted. I do not advocate, for example, private carry of machine guns (though they are damn fun to shoot at the range), but I don't disagree with private ownership of them. They are regulated fairly tightly, anyhow.
Realistically, the 'arms' we have now are nothing like anything the Framers of the Constitution could have imagined. We have to expect some interpretation, as a result.
As for the 'parking lot' bills - forcing employers to allow a secured firearm in an employee's vehicle: part of me disagrees with it. As I said, private property rights trumps right-to-carry. However, in what other case does an employer ban an employee from having a legal item in their vehicle, in the parking lot?
What is the point of rules that are not enforced?
| 
