Forget legislating gun ownership, focus on gun discharge.
The SCOTUS has all but said that we can not restrict gun ownership rights for law abiding citizens of sound mind. Never mind that we have no inalienable right to food, shelter or health care or anything else that makes sense. Guns. Fine.
Considering that cars kill far more people annually that guns do, and considering the fact that we don't hold cars in contempt for the deaths they cause, unrestricted ownership is really not that crazy. I remember Chris Rock saying that he didn't mind everyone having a gun, as long as a bullet costs $1000. That gave me an idea. Restricting gun ownership is the wrong approach. How about severely restricting bullets? That seems about as difficult as restricting guns.
Perhaps it would be better to make the penalty for firing a gun illegally worse than drunk driving. The penalties for firing a gun vary widely from place to place. If some rural counties have no problem with folks shooting off their porch, that's up to them. However, most cities have laws against shooting but the penalties again vary widely. For States and Municipalities who want to control gun violence, I suggest the following; Make the discharge of a firearm a Felony Assault charge. Furthermore the charge should be made against anyone who fires a weapon, regardless of the reason.
This may seem extreme to some and I can hear the wailing for, or silently assumed, exception for law enforcement. Remember that, even with a civil criminal complaint, it is up to a district attorney to bring a charge. Also, in our modern age of immediate media conviction, we forget that being charged with a crime carries no mandatory sentence. Local prosecutors have little incentive to go after cops for every weapons discharge. Judges may be inclined to throw out charges against police for using their weapon in the line of duty. In some locales, this may extend to home and business owners who resist a robbery. They could be charged felony assault for firing a weapon, but they likely won't depending on the city/county/state. This doesn't even take into account being charged with or pleading down to a lesser crime.
The concern of liberals who fear unrestricted gun ownership is just as much a concern for vigilantism as it is for out right crime. We need to accept that fact that owning a gun is a constitutionally guaranteed right. However, firing that gun is not a protected right. Some rural places may treat it as a trivial matter but densely populated areas have every right to protect public safety. Furthermore, this approach allows local control. Places like Texas may choose to allow more vigilantism while other places may choose to prosecute and still others may leave it to the civil courts to settle.
What are your reactions to yesterday's ruling and my crazy proposals..? What are your state and local ordinances regarding the discharge of a firearm?