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
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: District of Columbia [View all]Nuclear Unicorn
(19,497 posts)27. Do you understand that a criminal cannot be prosecuted for
failing to register a gun or its sale?
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).
Background of the case
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
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. 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). 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
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).
Background of the case
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
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. 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). 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
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
60 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
That's an explicitly racist statement. Got any other racially based qualifications in mind?
friendly_iconoclast
Sep 2015
#39
That's an odd statement to make, why is it you only care about the safety and security
ileus
Sep 2015
#48
Selective acceptance of Supreme Court decisions: Not just for county clerks in Kentucky!
friendly_iconoclast
Sep 2015
#47
The problem with your quite reasonable statement, is that criminals do not always announce
guillaumeb
Sep 2015
#10
Why does the NRA (and most other gun rights groups) oppose a national gun registry?
branford
Sep 2015
#30
The utopia you seek is not acheivable - not while they are some who are intent on
jonno99
Sep 2015
#38
You've just inadvertently gave a resounding defense of policies such as "stop and frisk"
branford
Sep 2015
#23
so not a single comment on how you would make your version better than Canada's failure?
clffrdjk
Sep 2015
#44
The actual polling doesn't appear to support your claims for "reasonable" gun control,
branford
Sep 2015
#45
"No it's not that simple at all." On this you are exactly correct. However, there
jonno99
Sep 2015
#16
D.C.'s laws resonate with past Jim (large, raucous black bird) laws in the ol' South.
Eleanors38
Sep 2015
#9