Really?

[Dusty Balz, SASS#46599]

U.S. Supreme Court's 1968 Haynes v. U.S. decision:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Is this a great country or what…………..

 

U.S. Supreme Court's 1968 Haynes v. U.S. decision: Haynes,

a convicted felon, was convicted of unlawful possession of

an unregistered short-barreled shotgun. He argued that for a

convicted felon to register a gun was effectively an

announcement to the government that he was breaking the law

and that registration violated his Fifth Amendment protection

against self-incrimination. The court, by an 8 - 1 margin,

agreed, concluding: "We hold that a proper claim of the

constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a

full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a

firearm, or for possession of an unregistered firearm." (Summary

from American Rifleman magazine, March 2000, page 20) So,

when these gun registration schemes are announced, be very

aware that only lawfulgun-owners are required to register

their firearms. Unlawful owners are exempted from

registration laws due to their constitutional protection against

self-incrimination.

 

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/390/85/

 

 

 

 

[Dutch Coroner]

That is just ridiculous.

[Subdeacon Joe]

I keep pointing that out to the people who are all for registration and they don't understand it. You could even extend that to background checks, since the same reasoning would apply. Felons have to buy their guns through illegal sources because trying to buy them legally would be self incrimination.

[Six-Shot]

I do see the "logic" in it. Many criminals aren't dumb. They're just always trying to beat the politicians and lawyers at their own game.