Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
Seeing as she had sufficient legal representation to appeal the case, I conclude any attorney writing the appeal would point out the plain statute language as one of the questions on appeal. As the question of private property was never even raised in the opinion, I can only conclude this issue does not apply to this case.18 USC 922(q)(2)(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
This is my last comment relating to this since it is so off-topic. But, I stand by my statement, there is nothing stopping them from convicting under the law when the person has a firearm in their home - if the home is part of "public" housing projects. I would also think that there is risk for other who have privately owned homes on publicly owned land, such as the people who were prevented from entering their homes due to the government shutdown. To me its just one more reason why that law is awful and needs to go away.Jumping Frog wrote:The only issue addressed in the appeal you cited was whether the 1000 foot requirement was unconstitutionally vague. The appeal never addressed private property, probably because the gun was in the alley behind the apartment.
The actual statute is crystal clear.
Seeing as she had sufficient legal representation to appeal the case, I conclude any attorney writing the appeal would point out the plain statute language as one of the questions on appeal. As the question of private property was never even raised in the opinion, I can only conclude this issue does not apply to this case.18 USC 922(q)(2)(B) Subparagraph (A) does not apply to the possession of a firearm—
(i) on private property not part of school grounds;
