It's crazy that she even had to appeal, since she met a black-letter exemption: being in her own residence (even "public housing" is private property for the resident).ELB wrote:http://openjurist.org/480/f3d/597/unite ... ves-castaoUS vs NIEVES-CASTAÑO, USCA 1st Circuit
NIEVES-CASTAÑO was convicted of possession of a machine gun, and possessing a firearm within 1000' of a school. The 1st Circuit overturned her conviction for possession of a machine gun (which is interesting reading in itself), but upheld the GFSZ Act of 1995 conviction. Altho the gun in question was in her apartment (in a public housing project), she did not challenge the law on the exception for guns on "private" property, but rather argued that the 1000' requirement was unconstitutionally vague, because it did not specify how it should be measured (e.g. from the school property line? from the building?) The appeals court ruled against her, citing various other cases and laws, with distance measurements, but in the end basically said she was so close to the school, it didn't matter how it was measured, she was too close.
So much for judges judging the law, and juries judging the facts, eh?
All three of these cases follow the conventional wisdom: you have to be doing something else that is overtly criminal to be charged under GFSZA.
