It seems pretty clear that the police were never made aware of the gunshots. I doubt it is legal to shoot your neighbor's house anywhere in this country.
Its a felony anywhere I have lived. It generally falls under "reckless discharge", and I remember it covered in hunter's safety class back when I was a 6th grader. They very sternly warned of dire consequences.
I don't know the level of seriousness here, but discharging a weapon within 150 yards of a house or occupied building is definitely unlawful in CA:
"3004. (a) It is unlawful for any person, other than the owner, person in possession of the premises, or a person having the express permission of the owner or person in possession of the premises, to hunt or to discharge while hunting, any firearm or other deadly weapon within 150 yards of any occupied dwelling house, residence, or
other building or any barn or other outbuilding used in connection therewith. The 150-yard area is a "safety zone."
(b) It is unlawful for any person to intentionally discharge any firearm or release any arrow or crossbow bolt over or across any public road or other established way open to the public in an unsafe and reckless manner."
Perhaps it's not legal, but that doesn't necessarily mean the police will act. Depending on where it is, rural police may be less willing to follow up on complaints if the suspect is armed (lack of manpower compared to urban counterparts, and greater distance to fire station, hospital etc. in case something happens). They'll be less likely to act if the offence is minor; a bullet hitting a window or door would probably only lead to a small or medium fine.
The operative words here are could have been - nobody was injured or killed. Of course, if that did happen, then the usual consequences of injuring or killing someone with a firearm ensue. The problem is, there are many things that could injure someone, and you cannot simply make them all illegal, otherwise driving would be an offence. However, note that negligence is probably citeable as a factor in some of these cases, so perhaps that is the route to go down?
Depending on where it is, rural police may be less willing to follow up on complaints if the suspect is armed (lack of manpower compared to urban counterparts, and greater distance to fire station, hospital etc. in case something happens).
This is ridiculous. Just because the crime involves firearms doesn't mean the person being arrested is a cold blooded murderer. Being afraid of arresting someone who has a gun but shows no intention to kill or hurt anyone is like refusing to drive because there are other cars coming in the opposite direction. Oh sure, they might switch into the wrong lane and kill me, but there's nothing to gain from that. It's stupid.
Have you lived in the rural USA? If someone is a minor the cops are still allowed to scare the hell out of them and shame them. Yes, if they are a minor, they might escape something on their record that will destroy their life, but we'd rather they learn then end up with a dead end life.
I have found urban cops to be less responsive and more prone to take a police report over the phone (for insurance purposes) then to actually deal with robbery or other "minor" offenses. Had my car broken into in a underground parking lot with cameras and video of the person who did it (portable drills are wonderful things). Didn't show up but we got a case # for insurance.
Had the exact thing happen in Encino neighborhood of LA (fairly nice part, on the expensive side) and guards even caught one of them. Police took hours to arrive and they only bothered with the person caught.
When I asked if they wanted to examine my damaged car, they cop looked at me as if I'm asking him something stupid, told me to stop by the station and file the report for insurance. When I asked if they are going after the others, he told me "you have insurance, don't you? Then what are you worried about?". So much for going after crime...
