[stormer]

http://www.mlive.com/news/grand-rapids/index.ssf/2012/02/man_who_brought_to_gun_to_scho.html: "Looman came into the school through an entry designated for voters, then after voting, walked into the main portion of the school with a weapon clearly visible." I.e., wandering around.

And I hope I don't need to point out that in a neighboring state and a day before this incident a young man with a "big bad gun" killed three kids in a school. By your logic, if rather than concealing his weapon if he'd simply worn it in a holster, right up to the point where he pulled the weapon, no one should have been able to challenge him as to his intentions.

[Bigh4u2]

"Looman came into the school through an entry designated for voters, then after voting, walked into the main portion of the school with a weapon clearly visible." I.e., wandering around. "

How else to you get into a school but through the "Main portion" or entrance of the school?

Sorry, but you defining it as 'wandering around' doesn't cut it, and is not supported in the article.

"In his written opinion, Prosecutor William Forsyth said Looman legally carried his pistol when he went to vote with the gun holstered in plain view at his waist. "

As has been pointed out in another post, Michigan has no 'open carry' law requiring a permit so the argument of the necessity to 'report' him for having a gun is moot.

"neighboring state "

Seriously?

So a crime is committed in a different state and you think it applies to Michigan?

Your argument is nothing but a strawman to try to bolster your point.

All it is doing is proving how much of a reactionary you are.