Isn't that part of the reason for "prosecutorial discrestion"? We don't necessarily charge every person who has technically committed some level of "crime" based upon the letter of the law.
So what happens when the prosecutor decides to make an example out of someone? Are you OK with that?
Consider two recent "high capacity magazine" cases in DC.
James Brinkley was arrested for having a 15 round magazine in his car. The prosecutor wasn't willing to just let it go despite the fact that Mr Brinkley didn't break the law.
David Gregory actually did break the law and wasn't charged. That means the prosecutors decided not to do anything about it even though, unlike Brinkley he did break the law.
Are you OK with this sort of thing? It's one thing to say the prosecutors will reduce the charges. Are you OK with it if they don't?
And, imho, someone w/a concealed carry permit who "forgets" and wears it into school isn't demonstrating the level of reesponsible gun ownership required for that concealed carry.
You would be wrong. If the person carries all the time and has a proper holster then it would be quite easy to momentarily forget that you have a gun SECURELY on your person. Irresponsible would be leaving the gun out of your control where it's not secured. Responsible is keeping it with you where you are in control of it. Also, remember that having it in the car might be a violation. Take the Brinkley case. Had that happened on a school ground in NY the charges might have been felony vs lesser charges.
Do you think ANYONE should ever have to face felony charges for simply possessing a gun on school property even if they have no criminal intent? That is what this law allows. Do you think that punishment fits the crime?