Since the Constitution protects the Right to carry guns for self defense......is it right to destroy the life of a law abiding person who carries a legally owned and carried gun into a gun free zone? This comes up as Ohio and other states want to reform their gun free zone laws...so that a law abiding gun owner, who mistakenly brings their lawfully carried sidearm onto school grounds as they go about the normal business of dropping off and picking up their children, yet forget to take off their guns.........so they won't become convicted felons ...and have their lives destroyed even though they have committed no crime with the gun, and didn't even draw the gun from the holster.....they just carried it with them...as the Constitution allows..... Here are some thoughts on this... http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2015/11/09/glenn-reynolds-gun-control-enforcement-takes-human-toll-column/75414186/ ottrol noted that crimes like carrying or owning a pistol without a license are what the law has traditionally termed malum prohibitum — that is, things that are wrong only because they are prohibited. (The contrast is with the other traditional category, malum in se, those things, like rape, robbery, and murder, that are wrong in themselves.) Traditionally, penalties for malum prohibitum acts were generally light, since the conduct that the laws governed wasn’t wrong in itself. But modern American law often treats even obscure and technical violations of gun laws as felonies and —Cottrol noted — prosecutors often go out of their way to prosecute these crimes more vigorously even than traditional crimes like rape or murder. If it were up to me, I’d find it a violation of the due process clause to treat violation of regulatory statutes as a felony. Historically, only the most serious crimes — typically carrying the death penalty — were felonies. Nowadays, though, we designate all sorts of trivial crimes, such as possessing an eagle feather, as felonies. This has the effect of empowering police and prosecutors at the expense of citizens, since it’s easy to find a felony if you look hard enough, and few citizens have the courage of a veteran like Cort, who went to trial anyway. Most will plead to something. Meanwhile, on the gun front, I think we need federal civil rights legislation to protect citizens who make innocent mistakes. Federal law already defines who is allowed to possess firearms. Under Congress’s civil rights powers (gun ownership and carrying, after all, are protected under the Second Amendment), I think we need federal legislation limiting the maximum penalty a state can assess for possessing or carrying a firearm on the part of someone allowed to own a gun under federal law to a $500 fine. That would let states regulate reasonably, without permitting this sort of injustice.