That is still far fetched. If you have an example that does not involve one shooting at a car is a school zone, I'm all ears.
What I do know is that the license to purchase and registration is a huge infringement on our rights and it violates ALL of us by merely existing.
I'm disappointed that MOC hasn't supported the bill because it does affect open carriers in a way no one has mentioned. Michigan has extra prohibited possessor laws compiled with the purchase permit rules. If this repeal happens then Michigan will mirror federal law by default.... Which opens the door of handgun ownership to more people.
I forgot to mention, that the local police would be calling the Feds at their own peril because ALL their off duty cops (unless they have a CPL) would be in violation of the GFSZ law as well.
It would be a conspiracy if people started to get jammed up meanwhile no off duty cops would be getting jammed up.
You may be right, perhaps there have been no prosecutions for purely carrying a firearm in these zones; I will keep looking though. However, one must ask what would bring the attention of law enforcement upon someone? In the case I cited, we don't know why the individual shot at the car. Obviously, shooting at cars tends to bring attention. If a person were carrying concealed, the police wouldn't know if a violation were occurring or not.
Two problems with this thinking:
1. This website is designed as a forum for those who "Open Carry". Carrying a firearm openly tends to, at least to me, be something that people notice. With the increasing practice of Open Carry, is it at least conceivable that people will be "jammed up"?
2. However, whether one gets "jammed up" or not is irrelevant: violating the law is violating the law... ie acting illegally. If we have people here who say "Oh well, the chances are so remote that I would ever get caught etc" they are still KNOWINGLY violating the law. Besides the forum rules which state that this website only promotes legal behavior (I'm paraphrasing here), there is also the question of what kind of firearm owners would knowingly violate the law. Yes, it is onerous to have to put your UNLOADED gun in a case every time you knowingly travel through a school zone... but to not do so, and to advise others not to worry about it because "what are the chances that you will get charged and convicted?", is advocating illegal behavior. Surprising, since I understand that you are a federal law enforcement officer tasked with enforcing the law. I am not trying to impugn your integrity... I just believe your rightful opposition to registration is causing you to state things that COULD BE construed to be advocating illegal behavior.
I will emphatically state, though, that I am not saying that this bill should not be passed (disappointed that there is no provision for a voluntary permit, but it still should be passed). I say this for a number of reasons.
-As an FFL (03), this ALMOST completely removes the state authorities knowing which pistols I have.
-The negative aspects don't affect me... I have a CPL.
-Adhering to the requirement under the GFSZA for those carrying without a CPL is possible.
-I think the requirement could be useful in the defense of a state CCW charge if you do not have a CPL..."Your honor, although I was carrying an unloaded firearm in my briefcase, I was following what was required of me since I was going to be traveling through some Federal Gun Free Zones... so I had no choice". (Not saying this would work, though.)
So, on the face of it, since the effects of this passing are nothing but all positive for me... so be it. It is what it is. Of the legislation that I've seen proposed and actually facing the possibility of passing, it is the best so far. But with the possibility, once again, that we could have so much better, pardon my <YAWN> if this passes. Once again I ask if this is the best we can do.