Filburn was about economic, not safety. The courts reasoning relied upon it's economic impact.
Lopez was overturned. We won. Please read the courts opinon here again:
"To uphold the Government's contentions here, we have to pile inference upon inference in a manner that would bid fair to convert congressional authority under the Commerce Clause to a general police power of the sort retained by the States. Admittedly, some of our prior cases have taken long steps down that road, giving great deference to congressional action. The broad language in these opinions has suggested the possibility of additional expansion, but we decline here to proceed any further. To do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do."
You are doing exactly what the court said cannot be done. Piliing inference upon inference claiming unlimted power. The court said no on exactly that point.
Is there any claim of right here other than "commerce clause"? No? Then the UBC is dead. DOA.
So, what you are claiming is that there is no more Federal School Zone 1000' prohibition? Would you care to cite the case that overturned Lopez?
I would suggest that you review this history:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun-Free_School_Zones_Act_of_1990
Following the Lopez decision, President Clinton's Attoney General Janet Reno proposed changes to 18 U.S.C. § 922(q) that were adopted (or "concealed" and "widely ignored" as one author put it) in section 657 of the Omnibus Consolidated Appropriations Act of 1997, Pub.L. 104–208, 110 Stat. 3009, enacted September 30, 1996.[5]
These minor changes required that the firearm in question "has moved in or otherwise affects interstate commerce".[6]
As nearly all firearms have moved in Interstate Commerce at some point in their lives, critics assert this was merely a legislative tactic to circumvent the Supreme Court's ruling.[5]
Challenges
The Supreme Court of the United States held that the original Act was an unconstitutional exercise of Congressional authority under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution in United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549 (1995). This was the first time in over half a century that the Supreme Court limited Congressional authority to legislate under the Commerce Clause.
Although the amended GFSZA has yet to be challenged in the United States Supreme Court, it has been reviewed and upheld by several United States Circuit Courts. In a 2005 Appellate case, United States v. Dorsey,[7] the minor changes of the revised law were specifically challenged. In the Dorsey case, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the minor changes were indeed sufficient to correct the issues that had caused the original 1990 law to be struck down in United States v Lopez, and they upheld Dorsey's conviction under the revised version of the law.
Other convictions upheld post-Lopez under the revised Gun Free School Zone Act include:
United States v Danks (Eighth Circuit 1999)
United States v Tait (Eleventh Circuit 2000)
United States v Haywood (Third Circuit 2002)
United States v Smith (Sixth Circuit 2005)
United States v Dorsey (Ninth Circuit 2005)
United States v Nieves-Castaño (First Circuit 2007)
United States v Weekes (Third Circuit 2007)
United States v Benally (Tenth Circuit 2007)
United States v Cruz-Rodriguez (First Circuit 2008)