Not a good avenue of regulation. It doesn't matter to me if somebody gets drunk and carries a weapon, it matters more if they have a history of crime, substance abuse, mental instability, or domestic violence. Background checks are more important. This is also a difficult idea to enforce.
If not, what penalty should be given for such act? Should it be punishable to the extent that drunk driving is? How exactly should it be regulated?
It doesn't matter to me if somebody gets drunk and carries a weapon
You will have to explain to me why you think this is true. All other things being equal, if I had to pick between a room with a drunk person holding a gun or a sober person holding a gun, it would not be a 50/50 choice for me. Please explain to me why you think it should be.
This is also a difficult idea to enforce.
Please also explain to me why you think this is true. Whether or not a person is intoxicated and whether or not they are carrying a gun are not difficult things to evaluate.
Going to play devil's advocate for JupterExile....while I don't think drunk people and guns are a great combination, I think the other things mentioned are potentially worse.
Make these comparisons as a mental experiment:
1. A violent criminal with a gun vs. a non-violent but drunk person with a gun.
2. A meth addict with a gun vs. a non-addicted drunk person with a gun.
3. A mentally ill person with a gun vs. a sane but drunk person with a gun.
...I think I'll chose the normal but drunk person each time.
I live in a western, desert state where most people own guns, and one of the most common past times is getting a case of beer, some guns, and going out into the desert to shoot. There is no law against doing that here, and I'm not sure it is necessary. We already have laws against driving while drunk, or shooting people, even if you are sober. I don't see the need for additional laws making it illegal to be both drunk and a gun owner at the same time.
I don't want ANY of those people to have a gun. Just because a violent criminal with a gun is more dangerous than a non-violent drunk with a gun does not mean that being drunk and having a gun isn't too dangerous to be allowed. In the case of the drunk, it's not his/her propensity for violence that is the concern, but rather the lack of judgment. You might do well to look at some police reports in your jurisdiction and find out how often people who go out to the desert to drink and shoot together accidentally injure or kill one of the group. And what about drunken people who live in densely populated urban areas who get drunk and don't go out to the wide open spaces to shoot? They may not be willfully aiming at people, but if they accidentally shoot out someone's window, they might also hit the person standing behind that window. And while such a person might do something so reckless while drunk, they would not do so while cold sober. It's the same reasoning as we use for drunk driving laws: If you don't use a substance that suppresses the judgment centers of your brain, you are far less likely to kill or maim someone with a dangerous device like a car or a gun.
As I said, just playing devil's advocate. I'm a supporter of more stringent gun laws, but I live in a 'Wild West" state and I know that it would be nearly impossible to stop people around here from drinking and shooting in the desert. That's a traditional Nevada past time.
Do people get hurt? Yes, but far less than you would imagine....
Shooting sprees that break windows? Yeah, our last one was in 2007, here's the article - but I don't know if alcohol was involved: kolotv.com/home/headlines/5798901.html
When you are drunk or drinking, you have a diminished capacity. I am not for more laws because they do little to dissuade those who do not have common sense who will do those things anyways; look at all the people who still have cell phones glued to their faces while driving. In any case, if a firearm is used and the shooting is unjustified, the person will already be punished for it whether drunk or sober.
The Second Amendment is not a right, it is a responsibility. Carrying a firearm is permitted; negligence is not. Diminished capacity is negligence.
Even rights have responsibilities and if you are drunk in a state where it is legal to carry a fire arm, you waive that right until you are sober.
Its sad that there even needs to be a law for that which should be common sense.