There was one case a few years ago where someone robbed a store with a knife and the store clerk had a pistol but didn’t use it.
The robber was charged under this statute. There was a firearm present. Dunno about you, but despite the visceral “he deserved it” reaction, academically that’s not right as the robber didn’t bring the firearm, use the firearm or ever have custody or possession of the firearm - or even touch it.
The law is too vague. It should specifically list the crimes that it applies to and the conditions under which the presence of a firearm triggers the sentencing.
I see that as an issue of judicial interpretation. A judge failed to rule on the nonsensical claim.
The presence of a knife does strike me as a possible classification instigator. (If the law sites the need for a gun to be involved, I would be wrong of course, but the robber would need to be the person who introduced it.)
I do agree with your take on the situation you mentioned.
No intent to carry or use a gun does not qualify on the basis of a gun present > IMO.