Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
Mon Mar 16, 2015, 09:31 PM Mar 2015

Haynes v. United States

Haynes v. United States

Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (1968), was a United States Supreme Court decision interpreting the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution's self-incrimination clause. Haynes extended the Fifth Amendment protections elucidated in Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 57 (1968).[1]

Background of the case[edit]

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.

Majority opinion[edit]

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.[1][2] The National Firearm Act was amended after Haynes to make it apply only to those who could lawfully possess a firearm. This eliminated prosecution of prohibited persons, such as criminals, and cured the self-incrimination problem. In this new form, the new registration provision was upheld. The court held: " To eliminate the defects revealed by Haynes, Congress amended the Act so that only a possessor who lawfully makes, manufactures, or imports firearms can and must register them", United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601 (1971).[3] The original Haynes decision continues to block state prosecutions of criminals who fail to register guns as required by various state law gun registration schemes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States


Thank-you to Virginia_mountainman for the US v Haynes reference in another thread. I had heard this case referenced in the past but didn't know the exact title of the case until he made mention of it in.
12 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Haynes v. United States (Original Post) Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2015 OP
Your welcome! virginia mountainman Mar 2015 #1
"are ONLY enforceable, and apply to NON-Criminals.... Sort of stupid isn't it?" Nuclear Unicorn Mar 2015 #2
Well... beevul Mar 2015 #5
Absolutely VM. NaturalHigh Mar 2015 #3
The registration push continues because the issue IS the law-abiding... Eleanors38 Mar 2015 #4
You are very correct.. virginia mountainman Mar 2015 #6
It's for some, a step beyond V I Lenin discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2015 #7
This cartoon explains what your saying, very succinctly.. virginia mountainman Mar 2015 #11
seem about what I was thinking discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2015 #12
I think the "gun control fans" sincerely believe in some kind of weird "Trickle Down" gun control DonP Mar 2015 #8
I think the measures are not policy-oriented. They use guns as a surrogate... Eleanors38 Mar 2015 #9
"Trickle Down" only works when... discntnt_irny_srcsm Mar 2015 #10

virginia mountainman

(5,046 posts)
1. Your welcome!
Mon Mar 16, 2015, 10:10 PM
Mar 2015


Most people that push these registration schemes have absolutely no clue that it is long settled law that it (gun registration laws) are completely unenforceable, and simply does not apply to criminals...They are ONLY enforceable, and apply to NON-Criminals.... Sort of stupid isn't it?

But pointing out that fact, runs afoul of the dogma, and would be enough to ban you from some star chambers.

Nuclear Unicorn

(19,497 posts)
2. "are ONLY enforceable, and apply to NON-Criminals.... Sort of stupid isn't it?"
Mon Mar 16, 2015, 10:51 PM
Mar 2015

Not if the agenda is fear-driven, thinking everyone is already a pre-criminal.


But pointing out that fact, runs afoul of the dogma, and would be enough to ban you from some star chambers.

I prefer the term, "whine cellar."

NaturalHigh

(12,778 posts)
3. Absolutely VM.
Tue Mar 17, 2015, 06:25 PM
Mar 2015

It's kind of like the infamous Chicago handgun ban. Non-criminals didn't have guns, but criminals never had problems getting their hands on whatever firearms they wanted.

Put more simply, "If you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns."

 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
4. The registration push continues because the issue IS the law-abiding...
Wed Mar 18, 2015, 03:44 PM
Mar 2015

There is little concern with violent criminals; they will ALWAYS get guns through the same kind of black market that replaces legalized and regulated commerce. The controllers know this.

The objective is to give the government the tools to ban/confiscate firearms held by the 95% of gun-owners sometime in the future. In the meantime, registration lists -- especially those of concealed-carry -- can be from time to time pried open so gun-owners can be compared to child molestors and subjects of the usual rectal finger painting one finds on the inner tubes. Shame strategies are openly pursued by controllers.

virginia mountainman

(5,046 posts)
6. You are very correct..
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 02:04 PM
Mar 2015
The objective is to give the government the tools to ban/confiscate firearms


That has been the only reason all along.

discntnt_irny_srcsm

(18,508 posts)
7. It's for some, a step beyond V I Lenin
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 02:37 PM
Mar 2015

I call it, the redistribution of blame. The fact is shootings are awful. Gun murders are despised and often looked at differently than other murders. Guns are so very common and the ugly use made of them by the killers is burned into the minds of some folks. The idea that guns can be safe or benign or life-saving or even part of a hobby is a thought bridge that can't be crossed.

The conclusion for these folks is lock the connection between the instrument and the evil. By extension the owners of any of these instruments become partly to blame for any crimes, losses, accidents, suffering, injuries and deaths.

 

DonP

(6,185 posts)
8. I think the "gun control fans" sincerely believe in some kind of weird "Trickle Down" gun control
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 03:11 PM
Mar 2015

They really think that reducing/eliminating/banning lawful gun ownership will "eventually" have some sort of impact on criminals.

Fewer law abiding people with guns in their homes means there are fewer out there to steal.

Any criminal activity that results from an unarmed and defenseless populace is just collateral damage ... and since they owned guns, they probably deserved it anyway.

 

Eleanors38

(18,318 posts)
9. I think the measures are not policy-oriented. They use guns as a surrogate...
Mon Mar 23, 2015, 03:38 PM
Mar 2015

to go after a hated group and its culture (as they envision such), and more largely, the political entrenchment of the far right. If they have ANY policy concern it is in the obscure radical-left "new man theory" wherein adherents believed a new man would quickly emerge when the ways, beliefs, customs and rules associated with the "old man" were eliminated. A kind of Five Year Plan for societal change. Of course, this hasn't happened, but the very similar functions of prohibitionist politics persist even when the glorious theory of "new man" politics has passed to the dustbin of history.

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»Haynes v. United States