> What's the worst that could happen Given the precedent set by the Supreme Court, probably every gun owner and even people whose politics are deemed as "aidin

> What's the worst that could happen Given the precedent set by the Supreme Court, probably every gun owner and even people whose politics are deemed as "aiding and abetting" gun ownership being sued into bankruptcy by unrelated third parties, because the Supreme Court position has made it clear that a state setting civil penalties for something it wishes it could ban and permitting private bounty hunters to collect couldn't possibly be infringing on anyones' constitutional rights Edit: anyone want to tell me how a law constructed to circumvent constitutional restrictions on the state banning something by allowing them to make it a civil offence unrelated third parties can sue for doesn't set a precedent that it would be OK for a state with different political priorities to try this by setting civil penalties for gun ownership or unacceptable speech?