HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Topics » Justice & Public Safety » Gun Control & RKBA (Group) » Admittedly convoluted but...

Mon Jul 4, 2016, 04:04 PM

Admittedly convoluted but honestly asked question, RE: registration laws

It is established case precedent that a person intent on using a gun to commit a crime cannot be charged with failing to register their gun because doing something would violate their 5th Amendment protections against being forced to incriminate themselves (Haynes v US)

But suppose someone intended to violate no law except the law requiring registration? What could they be charged with?

5 replies, 1771 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 5 replies Author Time Post
Reply Admittedly convoluted but honestly asked question, RE: registration laws (Original post)
Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2016 OP
Straw Man Jul 2016 #1
virginia mountainman Jul 2016 #2
Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2016 #3
Straw Man Jul 2016 #4
Nuclear Unicorn Jul 2016 #5

Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Original post)

Mon Jul 4, 2016, 04:40 PM

1. An attempt at an honest answer.

The case precedent doesn't have to do with a person "intent on using a gun to commit a crime." It has to do with "prohibited person" status, i.e. a previously-convicted felon or other person who can't legally own a firearm. Such a person would be incriminating himself/herself if he/she attempted to register a firearm.

Hope that helped

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #1)

Tue Jul 5, 2016, 02:59 AM

2. Wouldn't...

The same being said for owning a 'banned firearm , or firearm item"?

Wouldn't attempts to register after a ban take effect, be self incrimination?

After all, some areas have made the crime of owning a magazine (box with a spring) more serious than some very serious sex crimes, New York, I am looking at you....

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to virginia mountainman (Reply #2)

Wed Jul 6, 2016, 11:23 AM

3. Straw Man provided a very good answer to my OP. I honestly had not considered what he

replied with.

However, you have provided a good follow up question.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Nuclear Unicorn (Reply #3)

Wed Jul 6, 2016, 06:14 PM

4. I am not a lawyer ...

Last edited Wed Jul 6, 2016, 06:58 PM - Edit history (1)

... but I think that a prohibited person could still be charged with "felon in possession" but not with the additional charge of "unregistered firearm."

In mountainman's follow-up, I think the person could be charged. Said person is not a "prohibited person" but does possess an illegal firearm.

In other words, someone with a clean record could be charged. Someone with a criminal history could not.

Ain't life grand?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Straw Man (Reply #4)

Wed Jul 6, 2016, 06:47 PM

5. Another good reason to be an anarchist: It's easier to keep up with all the rules.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread