Has Holder told Obama?

[Larry Gibson]

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, March 2000, page 20)

Still holds true today. Thus if they decide to register and make illegal certain types of firearms you have a "defense" not to. Just a thought.

Larry Gibson

[7br]

I read this to mean that only non-felons can be required to register firearms. Messed up isn't it.

[Char-Gar]

I believe 7br to be correct. Haynes as a convicted felon was unable to own any firearm. This the act of registering a firearm would be a violation of his 5th Amendment rights. They could convict Haynes for being a felon in possession of a firearm, but not for failure to register it. If one can register a weapon without incurring criminal resonsibility in the process, they can be prosecuted for not doing so.

[Larry Gibson]

I read it to mean (confirmed by lawyers and a DA back when it occured) that if you have an illegal weapon (sawed off shotguns are illegal to own without registering them even if you are not a felon) you are already breaking the law and are protected against self incrimination by the same 5th Ammendment. Haynes was convicted of "unlawful possession". We have to remember that if you are "in possesion" of a a weapon that is required to be registered and are not a felon you are still considered subject to arrest and conviction the same as Haynes was. Your right against self incrimination can not be abrdged simply because you are not a felon. At least that's the case for those who really believe in the Constitution unlike the current POTUS and his administration.

The point being; even if it were to apply only to criminals and felons it points out that registration will not get guns out of the hands of criminals. We need every bit of ammuntion these days to combat the coming attempt at more gun control. Might not be wise to disregard a Supreme Court decision such as this in our battle?

Larry Gibson

[GREENCOUNTYPETE]

i read it to mean if they make you a criminal with some new law you don't have to incriminate yourself , but you best not take anything incriminating to the range any more because the guy at the next bench might turn you in.

or like larry said if you make it illegal or bought it illegal.

[41 mag fan]

Laws that are redundant upon themselves. It's a vicious circle with band aids all around

[shooter93]

Felons who would fill out a 4473 to buy a gun are not lying....they are just not self incriminating. Be it won't work that way if you as a non-felon tried it.

[Edubya]

It does not say "against self incrimination" it says "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"
Big difference

EW

[MT2DAY]

what does the law say about shorting firearms...with proper grip is it a pistol?

[williamwaco]

Question,

I am not disagreeing with any interpretation but this question has bothered me for years?

If I cannot be compelled to incriminate myself by registering my illegal firearm, WHY can I be compelled to incriminate myself by giving a dna sample?

[JeffinNZ]

Question,

I am not disagreeing with any interpretation but this question has bothered me for years?

If I cannot be compelled to incriminate myself by registering my illegal firearm, WHY can I be compelled to incriminate myself by giving a dna sample?

Good question. Now there's a can of worms.

[freebullet]

Lol, can of worms indeed.

[Gator 45/70]

I'm still looking for the description of the legal and illegal barrel length in the constitution ?

[JeffinNZ]

I'm still looking for the description of the legal and illegal barrel length in the constitution ?

TWO cans of worms!

[bruce drake]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
Holder still has a problem reading this and not grimacing...
Everyone here should give thanks every day to James Madison, for he was the Anti-Federalist who first proposed that the Bill of Rights (First 10 Amendments) be added to the U.S. Constitution.
So we have Dolly Madison to thank for helping save some of the historic treasures of the original White House from the invading British in 1814...And her husband James for saving our rights as Free Men and not Subjects.

Bruce

[w5pv]

I think the barrel length thing was a mandate from FDR

[Bloodman14]

"Can of worms"? That's a barrel of poisonous snakes you just knocked over! I would think that the 5th Amendment would apply in any situation such as this.