Posted on 04/07/2013 7:30:36 PM PDT by Ben Mugged
Got this in an email this evening.
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 lawful gun-owners are required to register their firearms. Unlawful owners are exempted from registration laws due to their constitutional protection against self-incrimination. Amazing….. but true. http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/390/85/ ;
Keep violent criminals in prison and let everyone else have whatever gun they choose. We used to return weapons to inmates upon release from jail or prison.
Is this true ?
Agreed. If they’re too dangerous to have a gun, they’re too dangerous to be out of prison. The only xcons who oney that law are the law abiding ones.
Seems like the Louisiana supreme court just ruled in favor of felons having a right to protect themselves.
Its real simple, violent criminals shouldn’t be walking free and we should all be concerned about the ever growing list of crimes that are felonies.
The guy who ambushed firemen on Christmas is a perfect example of what is really wrong.
The man beat his own grandmother to death with a hammer in the mid 80s. He should have never walked free again and then he wouldn’t have been able to ignore the law that said he couldn’t have the gun he used to kill firemen.
Two cases were referred. The first was of a bookie who was required to report to the IRS his activities, and didn’t, so was convicted of failure to report. It was upheld.
The second was a bookie whose conviction was overturned because he did report, but that incriminating evidence was used against him for purposes of conviction.
I think that in the case of Haynes, the possession of the gun itself was a crime for which he could have been prosecuted if he was caught with it. But punishing him for reporting that he was committing a crime, or for *not* reporting that he was committing a crime, as two separate crimes along with the actual crime, was a bit much.
I am reminded of how years ago, the AZ Supremes decided that the state could require the purchase of tax stamps for marijuana, under threat of tax evasion, *or* that they could criminalize the marijuana; but they could not do both.
That is, require self-incrimination.
Exactly right.
And should make everyone that didn’t know about this ask why citizens have to have background checks and register when the criminals don’t. Maybe some the apologists (and lofos) one hears about who nod their heads in agreement with ‘sensible’ gun-laws (aka people control and violations of the constitution) will grasp why government has no business whatsoever meddling in this area. (Or just about any other area the constitution of limited, enumerated powers didn’t grant them the privilege to meddle in.)
Ummm, I would say lawful gun owners will be protected as well.
By not registering their weapons, they will become criminals. Therefore they will be covered by this SCOTUS ruling.
Most criminal laws are proscriptive in their operation: they prohibit certain behaviors or actions.
Requiring lawful gun owners to take the affirmative step of registering guns sounds like a tort, or a failure to comply with a minimum standard.
And it has a strong odor of either an ex post facto law or a bill of attainder.
The practical result of such governmental overreaching would be about half the country ignoring it, in effect telling our federal ‘Masters’ to go **** themselves.
Allow me to suggest another way that situation should have been handled. If he was proved beyond reasonable doubt to have murdered his grandmother, or any innocent human for that matter, he should have been hanged on the courthouse square the day after he was convicted.
OK,I admit that's a bit tough. I could go along with giving his lawyers a few months to come up with positive proof of his innocence. Then if nothing turned up to place doubt on his guilt, throw the trap and let him swing. That's not unfair, cruel, or unbiblical (tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for tooth, etc, Exodus ch 21 vs 24)
bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.