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


Depends on your definition of easy. Let's get rid of the ACA 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.
Damn! No one wants to say it out of fear of being called racist, bigoted or worse. Everyone glosses over that kind of stuff. Here's some more.
.
I want Welfare recipients to show-up at town hall every morning. 20 hours per week maintaining facilities and grounds. No show... no check. I would also free the potheads. Decriminalize and tax it.
.
And a lot more I throw in the face of the low-life parents that are pumping out future generations of welfare recipients. Stop getting drunk and stoned yourself. Clean-up the damn place. Put a meal on the table at night. keep the kids away from the bangers and drug corners. Make sure their homework is done. Work. Set an example. instill an ethic. We can't legislate our way out of this thing because much of the problem is in lack of morality and social breakdown. So I would increase the penalty on quality of life crimes. If your 14 year old kid is busted at 3:00 AM at a known drug location and you're home drunk or stoned, you're getting charged. Your sentence will be community service working at the detention center where I bring the little criminals still out after curfew. Yup, curfew. Unpopular with our civic leaders. But in bad areas curfew reduces street crime and quality of life crime. Put a curfew on certain ages. Gun crime? Homicide? Rape? Pedophilia? Forget about it. You go away for all day.
 

This is reasonable. After all, they 'paid their debt to society,' right? The high recidivism rate is directly proportional to the ludicrous societal hoops through which they're compelled to jump - impossible to get a job, the stigma of the past, etc.. Speaking of hoops to jump, most historians agree that WWII was a direct result of the Treaty of Versailles ludicrous demands upon a post WWI Germany - enflaming the Germans and forming the conditions for Hitler to succeed. We're doing essentially the same with our so-called "correctional" institutes.

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!
 
Last edited:
This kind of crap only makes sense to progressives and that includes politicians from both parties and many judges. They believe that our Constitution and the founders were deeply flawed. Marxism has never worked anywhere it has ever been tried, but progressives will never give up because they intend to institute this Utopian idea in a smarter way. Progressivism is an insidious and evil philosophy that destroys cultures, liberties, and all morality. Marxists take our constitutionsl rights and natural law and turn it into weapons to destroy our liberty and culture. Decisions of this type are used to destroy our legal system.

The ACLU was founded by avowed marxists, Crystal Eastman, Roger Baldwin, Norman Thomas, and Felix Frankfurter, to use our Constitutional rights to destroy our Republic and change it intio a Communist Utopia. Thomas even ran for President 6 times on the Socialist Party ticket. Decisions like the one that started this thread are meant to destroy the rule of law and our Constitution.

The progressive movement has been amazingly successful because it has exploited the greedy and power hungry politicians and lawyers. And the destruction has been encouraged by sycophants in the news media. They have forfeited their roles as the guardians of ths Republic and become cheerleaders for the Marxists.
 
Damn! No one wants to say it out of fear of being called racist, bigoted or worse. Everyone glosses over that kind of stuff. Here's some more.
.
I want Welfare recipients to show-up at town hall every morning. 20 hours per week maintaining facilities and grounds. No show... no check. I would also free the potheads. Decriminalize and tax it.
.
And a lot more I throw in the face of the low-life parents that are pumping out future generations of welfare recipients. Stop getting drunk and stoned yourself. Clean-up the damn place. Put a meal on the table at night. keep the kids away from the bangers and drug corners. Make sure their homework is done. Work. Set an example. instill an ethic. We can't legislate our way out of this thing because much of the problem is in lack of morality and social breakdown. So I would increase the penalty on quality of life crimes. If your 14 year old kid is busted at 3:00 AM at a known drug location and you're home drunk or stoned, you're getting charged. Your sentence will be community service working at the detention center where I bring the little criminals still out after curfew. Yup, curfew. Unpopular with our civic leaders. But in bad areas curfew reduces street crime and quality of life crime. Put a curfew on certain ages. Gun crime? Homicide? Rape? Pedophilia? Forget about it. You go away for all day.

I agree with your suggestions, however it's not the civic leaders who scream the loudest. In my lifetime, I've seen curfews proposed a number of times, but it wasn't the community leaders (local versions of Jessie Jackson and Al Sharpton) who made the most noise. The biggest objections came from the PARENTS of the delinquents! I guess they saw that they would have to actually be responsible for their own kids, and THEY DIDN'T LIKE IT! Imagine that concept being proposed to generations who've grown up under the notion that "it takes a village" to raise your kid...and the nanny state is the village.

You squirt 'em out...You take responsibility!
 
Felons MAKE a consicous choice, can we say the wrong one.

Consequence - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
~
Full Definition of CONSEQUENCE
~

1: a conclusion derived through logic : inference

~
2: something produced by a cause or necessarily following from a set of conditions <the economic consequences of the war>

~
3 a : importance with respect to power to produce an effect <a mistake of no consequence>

b : social importance

4: the appearance of importance; especially : self-importance
~
Examples of CONSEQUENCE
~
  • The slightest error can have serious consequences.
  • What were the economic consequences of the war?
  • The decrease in sales was a consequence of some bad publicity about the company.
  • Some say many jobs will be lost as a consequence of the trade agreement.
  • He weighed the consequences of making a career change.
  • The style you choose is of no consequence.
~
I find it not worthy that Merriam Webster doesn't consider imprisonment a consequence for violation of the law. Seems common occurrence to me.
~
The consequence of being a felon came from an individuals decision to preform some act that placed him/her in violation of the law. That decision was their choice, their choice to commit a crime for which they were charged, tried, convicted and sentenced under the laws of our country.
~
It is my Opinion that those who chose to violate societies laws must be punished, that ignorance of the law is no excuse and is not accepted by a court as a viable defense.
~
With that in mind, it is only acceptable that if crimes considered felonies have addition attached consequences as a matter of law, then they are included as part of the sentencing of a convicted felon and can not me mitigated away after release of detention without the courts blessings.
~
I have long contended that you as an individual can DO whatever you want during your life time, if you are willing to accept the consequences of your actions. To me accepting is; not whining about it afterwards, not crying foul when you think it isn't fair, not trying to blame someone else for your actions, and not trying to change the system just you don't have to suffer.
~
There is a very easy way of not having to worry about all this in the first place, don't break the law.
 
There is a very easy way of not having to worry about all this in the first place, don't break the law.

Sure, works every time, right? Well, actually, no it doesn't. Richard Jewell would likely hold a more flexible opinion on the subject, as would hundreds of others who have been exonerated after serving sometimes decades for crimes that modern DNA evidence proved they didn't commit. And that's just the wrongly-convicted who had DNA evidence in their case-files to test long after they were convicted. Simple extrapolation dictates that the number of wrongly-convicted felons out there, though highly significant, is unknowable if DNA cannot prove the case one way or the other.

I can't fathom how anyone could put so much faith in our injustice system these days. There is so much police brutality/corruption, and so much prosecutorial misconduct/corruption, and so many cases are based on completely usurped interpretations of the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th Amendments that to trust anything that comes out of a criminal trial anymore is to trust trials that keep no protections of the Constitution intact for defendants to rely on. And many innocents get caught up in that usurped system. And all that is before we even take into consideration simple cases of mistaken identity by witnesses, or honest mistakes by cops, prosecutors and judges. Put it altogether and the numbers cannot justify putting the amount of faith in the injustice system that your post reflects, dogshawred.

Link Removed
Eighteen people have been proven innocent and exonerated by DNA testing in the United States after serving time on death row. They were convicted in 11 states and served a combined 229 years in prison – including 202 years on death row – for crimes they didn’t commit.

Those "eighteen" mentioned above were only the ones exonerated after years of work by the Innocence Project. They didn't count any others but those whom they represented and successfully proved were wrongly convicted, but there are others, Lord help us all, there are many others.

10 People Who Were Wrongfully Accused of Heinous Crimes

The Exonerated
....These 37 men spent years, and in some cases decades, staring through bars at a world that believed they were guilty of terrible crimes. But they weren’t. Each was convicted of doing something he did not do. It’s hard to characterize the look in their eyes. There’s anger, obviously, and pride at having survived hell, but there’s also hurt, and a question: “Why me?”

Much more at link....

The National Registry of Exonerations lists 1265 (as of this writing) individual cases of post-conviction exoneration starting in 1989 to present. That link goes to a summary view of each case, and the percentage of exonerations that were the result of either mistaken identity or "perjury or false accusation" make up the majority reasons given for the reversed convictions.

There are several ways to consume the research done by the National Registry of Exonerations (that's their Home Page link), and anyone who thinks that, "There is a very easy way of not having to worry about all this in the first place, don't break the law," should scrutinize their research before coming to such a hard and fast conclusion.

Blues
 
The problem is that the "consequences" are arbitrary and unrelated to the offense. Nowadays gun rights revocation or restriction has become the goal of "effect", with practically anything being used as the justifiable "cause" for that effect. Now, some misdemeanors cause the loss of gun rights as well (even retroactively!). They keep piling on the reasons to lose one's gun rights. Why not attach speeding tickets to the reasons to lose one's gun rights? Bad credit score. Low bank account balance? Being male? Being a black male? Being a democrat?

Oh, that's going too far... can't draw the line there... the fact is, felons shouldn't have been denied their gun rights either, unless their crime was using a gun to commit a crime against someone else. And they should be allowed to vote.
 
Blues, you are right. The injustice and inequality that exist in the judicial system in our nation is abhorrent and will be difficult to impossible to eradicate in a timely manner.
~
Yet in the context of the OP, I stand by my statement of "Don't break the law". If you do your chances of suffering long after the time served goes without saying. The chances of suffering for not breaking the law is greatly diminished, one could say meniscal. Yes I know that those 18 and 37 men mention would not call it meniscal and I am sorry for those individuals, something I would not wish on my worst enemy.
~
Our Judicial System is corrupt and vile to say the very least. The contempt I hold for it is personal and considerable. I do not believe in our system and didn't relay that in my post.
~
I spoke of criminals, people who make a conscious decision to break the law for their benefit. That those individuals should expect to be treated differently by society (not that I am saying that is proper), it seems to be human nature and has been because of the stigma assigned to ex-cons. These are consequences of their decision to "break the law". Consequences that aren't usually associated to individuals that "don't break the law" and that society assign no stigma to for being a law abiding individual.
~
Back in the 70's I unknowing bought a stolen vehicle along with a stolen title. I registered the vehicle in Ohio and nothing came of from that registration process. I fixed the van up and travelled around the country during the Bicentennial crossing into Canada and Mexico in the process. Decided to establish residence in Utah during the trip, registered the vehicle and discovered my problem, read my rights and questioned and vehicle impounded by the state.
~
The guy who sold me the van had stole the van and was in jail for parole violation when my attorney caught up with him. He agreed to make restitution for the vehicle.
~
The judge hearing his parole violation case wouldn't allow him to make restitution because it would violate him regarding his parole violation case.
~
Long story short, I lost out because the criminal has more rights than law abiding citizens. Causing me to continue making the payments to the bank for the loan I took out to buy the van. Every month when we wrote that check we were reminded of the consequences of our decision, yet we paid off the note with the bank and burned the title afterwards. Not as elaborate or as significant as being held on death row, I know. But gave me a first hand picture of how the criminal justice system is being run by criminals with their own little army of blue badges.
~
So I take offense of your take on my being in favor of the criminally operated justice system in our nation. But I will get over this too. The consequences of belonging to and posting on any forum.
~
Good on you Blues
 
So I take offense of your take on my being in favor of the criminally operated justice system in our nation. But I will get over this too. The consequences of belonging to and posting on any forum.

Good on you Blues

That was a very confusing post to me, dog. For one thing, I didn't say you're "in favor" of the criminally operated justice system, I said that it sounds to me like you put too much faith in it by saying, "There is a very easy way of not having to worry about all this in the first place, don't break the law." I documented that not breaking the law is not enough to protect one's self from being scooped up by that criminally operated justice system, which, in and of itself, proves that the injustice system is a more apt description, and if that is proven, then having faith in any part of it is illogical at best.

So first you say I'm right, that the injustice system is "abhorrent," then you stand by what you said that my comments unequivocally contradicted as being true, then you summarize by saying you take offense at what I didn't say and close by saying "Good on you Blues."

I said nothing that you should have taken offense at, dog. I certainly intended no offense, I only intended to document why I disagreed with something you said, and I think I accomplished that in spades.

You are certainly entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. If the facts prove that not breaking the law is not enough to keep people from becoming a convicted felon, then "standing by" your statement to the contrary seems rather like ignoring the facts I presented. I have no idea what there is to argue about or take offense over, so like I said, I'm confused by the above post.

Blues
 

New Threads

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
49,542
Messages
611,255
Members
74,961
Latest member
Shodan
Back
Top