Felons Don't Have To Register Guns Under the Fifth Amendment


73z28454

New member
This is kind of interesting,

Link Removed

ruled in Haynes vs. U.S. (1968) that convicted felons have a Constitutional right to not register a gun, because to register a gun would be self-incrimination. Only people that aren’t criminals can be punished for not registering. If the criminals aren’t required to register, but you and I are, why bother?

As Cramer noted, the Supreme Court thus ruled that on Fifth Amendment grounds “a person illegally possessing a firearm, under either federal or state law, [can] not be punished for failing to register it.”

And,

Haynes v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The National Firearms Act of 1934 required the registration of certain types of firearms. Miles Edward Haynes was a convicted felon who was charged with failing to register a firearm under the Act. Haynes argued that, because he was a convicted felon and thus prohibited from owning a firearm, requiring him to register was essentially requiring him to make an open admission to the government that he was in violation of the law, which was thus a violation of his right not to incriminate himself.

In a 7-1 decision, the Court ruled in 1968 in favor of Haynes. Earl Warren dissented in a one sentence opinion and Thurgood Marshall did not participate in the ruling.

As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration.

So if I understand correctly, if they were to pass national firearm registration, felons could not be punished for not registering their firearms under the 5th Amendment, but those of us not convicted of a felony could be punished? Too funny!
 

misunderstood

New member
Well they have rights too. Just because they commit a crime ( no matter how terrible) deserve a second, third, or fifth chance. And they need guns to protect themselves from the good natured chirstians that want justice for crimes. It is not the governments job to control a crimnals life. And anyone that opposes this is just being racist and ignorant.
 

DRNurse1

DRNurse1
Well they have rights too. Just because they commit a crime ( no matter how terrible) deserve a second, third, or fifth chance. And they need guns to protect themselves from the good natured Chirstians that want justice for crimes. It is not the governments job to control a criminal's life. And anyone that opposes this is just being racist and ignorant.
Consequences. Go figure how the lawmakers missed this! But it is okay to snoop on, invade, and regulate law abiding folks.
 

fuhr52

New member
This means felons would also be exempt from a background check as well. If they are required to mark the felon question "yes" that's self incrimination. So once again politicians go after the law abiding citizen that isn't creating the violent crime problem. As the criminal element knows they are easy pickings. If the sleeping giant ever wakes up it's going to get ugly.
 

blarg

New member
unfortunately, idiots still have the right to post on the Internet because of the 1st amendment.

checking a box that indicates you are a convicted criminal isn't incriminating yourself. it's disclosure of a conviction that has already been established.

as far as registration goes, according to the Constitution, NOBODY has to register their guns.

sure have been a lot of trolls here lately.

by the way, Roe V. Wade ensures gun registration can't happen as well and protects concealed carry under 1st amendment right to privacy.
 

nosreme

Member
That decision sounds obnoxious, but makes sense strictly as a matter of 5th amendment constitutional law. But even though it creates the silly conundrum of registration applying only to those who can legally possess firearms, it really doesn't amount to much in the criminal law sense as the felon can and should still be charged with illegally possessing the firearm, and could easily be convicted. One offset for the lack of ability to prosecute for non-registration could easily be enhanced criminal penalties for possession of firearms by those who can't legally possess them by virtue of prior criminal conviction.
 

blarg

New member
well then it only proves further that registration isn't about preventing crime, it's about controlling the masses.
 

ChristCrusader

New member
Looks to me like felons would still be in trouble for being in possession of a firearm, and whatever other plethora of charges they'd pile on, it's just that failing to register specifically, can't be one of the numerous charges levelled.
On a side note, I don't think that any crime that didn't directly involve the misuse of a gun upon another person should incur the loss of rights to arms; and even gun-misuse-crime-related suspensions of rights should be periodically judicially reviewed and be appealable.
 

wolf_fire

New member
This is kind of interesting,

Link Removed

ruled in Haynes vs. U.S. (1968) that convicted felons have a Constitutional right to not register a gun, because to register a gun would be self-incrimination. Only people that aren’t criminals can be punished for not registering. If the criminals aren’t required to register, but you and I are, why bother?

As Cramer noted, the Supreme Court thus ruled that on Fifth Amendment grounds “a person illegally possessing a firearm, under either federal or state law, [can] not be punished for failing to register it.”

And,

Haynes v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The National Firearms Act of 1934 required the registration of certain types of firearms. Miles Edward Haynes was a convicted felon who was charged with failing to register a firearm under the Act. Haynes argued that, because he was a convicted felon and thus prohibited from owning a firearm, requiring him to register was essentially requiring him to make an open admission to the government that he was in violation of the law, which was thus a violation of his right not to incriminate himself.

In a 7-1 decision, the Court ruled in 1968 in favor of Haynes. Earl Warren dissented in a one sentence opinion and Thurgood Marshall did not participate in the ruling.

As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration.

So if I understand correctly, if they were to pass national firearm registration, felons could not be punished for not registering their firearms under the 5th Amendment, but those of us not convicted of a felony could be punished? Too funny!


I go with another slant. Let's say you committed a felony.... you were arrested, tried and prosecuted. You then served your time. You now are back on the streets, why are you denied your 2nd Amendment rights. And if you can be denied your 2nd Amendment rights, why not your 5th too? Here's the deal, if you are still a danger to society, you shouldn't be let out. However, if you've served your time, you are to be a free person once again with God given inalienable rights.
 

BC1

,
I think we expect criminals to lie anyway. My best friend is a criminal defense attorney. He tells me after practicing nearly 30 years he never met a client who admitted doing anything.
 

wolf_fire

New member
unfortunately, idiots still have the right to post on the Internet because of the 1st amendment.

checking a box that indicates you are a convicted criminal isn't incriminating yourself. it's disclosure of a conviction that has already been established.

as far as registration goes, according to the Constitution, NOBODY has to register their guns.

sure have been a lot of trolls here lately.

by the way, Roe V. Wade ensures gun registration can't happen as well and protects concealed carry under 1st amendment right to privacy.

But there are states that DO require you to register your firearms.
 

BC1

,
I go with another slant. Let's say you committed a felony.... you were arrested, tried and prosecuted. You then served your time. You know are back on the streets, why are you denied your 2nd Amendment rights. And if you can be denied your 2nd Amendment rights, why not your 5th too? Here's the deal, if you are still a danger to society, you shouldn't be let out. However, if you've served your time, you are to be a free person once again with God given inalienable rights.
Too bad it isn't that easy. I think most criminals would rather get released without gun rights than stay inside for all day.
 

Rich kid

New member
Just as a footnote, the petitioners attorney was Charles Alan wright who also was nixons attorney when he contested judge siricas order to surrender the watergate tapes. Professor wright was widely regarded as the foremost authority on constitutional law and the use of the federal courts.
 
E

ezkl2230

Guest
This is kind of interesting,

Link Removed

ruled in Haynes vs. U.S. (1968) that convicted felons have a Constitutional right to not register a gun, because to register a gun would be self-incrimination. Only people that aren’t criminals can be punished for not registering. If the criminals aren’t required to register, but you and I are, why bother?

As Cramer noted, the Supreme Court thus ruled that on Fifth Amendment grounds “a person illegally possessing a firearm, under either federal or state law, [can] not be punished for failing to register it.”

And,

Haynes v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The National Firearms Act of 1934 required the registration of certain types of firearms. Miles Edward Haynes was a convicted felon who was charged with failing to register a firearm under the Act. Haynes argued that, because he was a convicted felon and thus prohibited from owning a firearm, requiring him to register was essentially requiring him to make an open admission to the government that he was in violation of the law, which was thus a violation of his right not to incriminate himself.

In a 7-1 decision, the Court ruled in 1968 in favor of Haynes. Earl Warren dissented in a one sentence opinion and Thurgood Marshall did not participate in the ruling.

As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration.

So if I understand correctly, if they were to pass national firearm registration, felons could not be punished for not registering their firearms under the 5th Amendment, but those of us not convicted of a felony could be punished? Too funny!

Actually, if they ever passed a national registration, they would likely make failure to register a felony. Therefore, all owners who chose not to register their firearms would be felons, providing them with 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination by registering.
 

Rich kid

New member
Actually, if they ever passed a national registration, they would likely make failure to register a felony. Therefore, all owners who chose not to register their firearms would be felons, providing them with 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination by registering.

Not exactly. They would not be felons until they were convicted of a felony. Your chronology is a little skewed as usual.
 

wolf_fire

New member
Too bad it isn't that easy. I think most criminals would rather get released without gun rights than stay inside for all day.

Depends on your definition of easy. Let's get rid of the AHA first (over a trillion dollars is freed), let's get rid of welfare as it exists and go back to the poorhouse concept, let's stop the waste of taxpayer money by eliminating the free cell phones to people, in other words stop giving handouts. This would free up a considerable amount of existing money coming into the Federal government. Go on a massive campaign to build more prisons and hire more prison guards. Legalize narcotics, and end the DEA. Free all those in jail for marijuana possession. We now have more jails, more prison guards and less taxpayer waste. Now tell the judges, don't be lenient on violent crime. Add the death penalty to anyone convicted of sexual molestation of anyone who is prepubescent by an adult. Don't allow sexual predators out of prison, EVER. Also, quit making prisons a country club. No cable TV... Internet only if supervised during educational sessions, add the chain gang so our sons and daughters can see the "bad man" working along the side of the street.

Several things will happen. Criminals will start to think twice about crime since jail sentences will be longer and harsher. Also, gangs will start to disappear without a drug market. Drug cartels will be eliminated. In my opinion, overall crime will go down.

All of these things are easy to do. Why don't they get done? Follow the money trail.... politicians remain in office when elected by libtards that receive the freebies.
 
Last edited:

jrs

New member
The Haynes ruling is also important as it relates to the NY SAFE Act. The Tresmond Law firm has been arguing cases on behalf of gun owners in NY and has been on the radio discussing progress periodically. While not giving legal advice on the radio, they are arguing in their filings that, like under Haynes, if you fail to register an "assault weapon" by the date specified in the law (April 1, 2014???), then under the 5th Amendment, you would be required by the SAFE ACT to incriminate yourself. They argue that this presents a conundrum under the law... and is one more reason that the law is unconstitutional.
So, it's not just the criminals who are affected by this ruling....it's also the (formerly) law abiding citizens of NY who are affected by the registration requirements under the piece of ***** law forced in us as an "emergency" by Andrew Cuomo and his minions.
 

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,437
Messages
623,670
Members
74,276
Latest member
ForwardUntilDawn
Top