[Cosmoline]

Virtually every state and every community in the country has regulations strictly prohibiting discharge or hostile brandishing of firearms outside of shooting ranges or unzoned private property. They've been around for a long time. It seems to me these strict laws already establish reasonable gun control, and that more is not needed. But somehow both sides seem to overlook these laws in the gun control debate. If guns are like cars, then they're like cars that can only be turned on in very limited circumstances.

[Tamara]

Good laws prohibit behaviors, not objects.

Within reason, I have no objection to laws of this sort, although theoretically any ill effects from "discharging firearms within city limits" or "brandishing" are already covered by various assault and disturbing the peace/destruction of property statutes.

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem with brandishing laws is that they're typically so vaguely worded, or flexibly interpreted, as to end up a de facto prohibition on carrying, not brandishing. At though you had a statute prohibiting "fighting words", and the courts decided that all words with consonants qualified as such.

[Richard.Howe]

The objectionable part of these laws is their sporadic enforcement. Open carry in one restaraunt is brandishing next door at Starbucks. Sure...you're OK in the end, but after a big hassle, embarrassment, and potential legal worries.