zero7one
26 June 2013, 12:45
I received this in an email from a fellow LEO.....
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."
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/
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."
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/