Consequences. Go figure how the lawmakers missed this! But it is okay to snoop on, invade, and regulate law abiding folks.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.
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!
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.
Too bad it isn't that easy. I think most criminals would rather get released without gun rights than stay inside for all day.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.
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.
Too bad it isn't that easy. I think most criminals would rather get released without gun rights than stay inside for all day.
Too bad it isn't that easy. I think most criminals would rather get released without gun rights than stay inside for all day.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?