Mike Haas wrote:

> RAY wrote:
> >       But none of this has anything to do with the
> > NRA website's implication that the Haynes ruling
> > allows common criminals to keep guns without
> > registering them.
>
> 1. NRAWinningTeam.com is not an NRA web site.

RR:  It has all the trappings of one.  And the NRA has
not disavowed it.

> 2. NRAWinningTeam.com does NOT imply that the Haynes ruling
> allows criminals to keep their firearms.

RR:  That's EXACTLY the implication it draws.  It's trying
to drum up sympathy among the ignorant faithful that
law-abiding citizens have to register their guns in order
to keep them, but that criminals can keep their guns
without registering them.  That's a lie.

> 3. NRAWinningTeam.com states clearly (without implications)
> that "The Supreme Court has protected criminals against
> prosecution for both failing to register firearms and possessing
> unregistered ones with Haynes v. US."  That does not state or imply
> that criminals are "allowed" anything, just that they can't be
> prosecuted.

RR:  So give us the name of one single 'criminal' who was protected
against prosecution for failing to register firearms, and
make sure you tell us what crime was responsible for turning
this individual into a criminal.
       In point of fact, the ONLY person ever so named was Haynes,
who's only 'crime' was a guilty plea to possessing an illegal
firearm.  Haynes was not a 'common criminal,' and even if
he had been a common criminal, he never would have been
required to self-incriminate himself about any common crimes
(burglar, murder, tax evasions, etc).
       The NRA website lies when it implies that common
criminals get away with something that legal citizens
do not.

> 4. NRAWinningTeam.com goes on to state "As a result of Haynes v.
> US, 390 U.S. 85 (1968), a criminal cannot be convicted for
> failure to register a firearm because to do so would represent
> a violation of the criminal's Fifth Amendment right against
> self-incrimination. "  That does not state or imply
> that criminals are "allowed" anything, just that they can't be
> prosecuted.

RR:  "just can't be prosecuted???"  And THAT isn't getting
away with something?  Are you NUTS?
       Of course it's getting away with something.  That's
the only reason why the NRA website misuses the Haynes
decision... to falsely imply that criminals get away
with something which honest citizens do not.

> NO WHERE DOES NRAWINNINGTEAM IMPLY THAT HAYNES V. US ALLOWS
> CRIMINALS TO POSSESS ASSAULT WEAPONS.  Ray is twisting what it does say
> into what it does not, because he can't attack what it does say.
> Surprised?

RR:  I never said a word about assault weapons (currently defined
as prohibited semi-automatic long guns).  What are
you thinking, Michael?

> Any gun can be confiscated from criminals.  However, granted immunity
> from prosecution for failing to register, they don't, so they
> fear not confiscation, while the law-abiding registers and loses.

RR:  That's BS, Mike, and you should know better.  Every day
on the streets of chicago felons are nabbed, prosecuted and
put in jail for having unregistered guns.  See, you yourself
have even been dupped by the NRA's false implications
from the Haynes decision.  You have been brainwashed
by the Big Lie.

> PS: Ray, when I reported the SKS confiscation in 98, you denied that
> too.
> Even after looking at the web site, you said you didn't see any more
> then
> one NRA member's (Doss) gun being confiscated.  Now we have special laws
> passed
> to indemnify the tens of thousands of SKS owners you denied the
> existence of
> AND SKSBuyBack.org to boot!  Man, you are good at being wrong!  Few
> could
> make a mistake like that and show their face to falsify again.
> (Of course, I wish I *had* been wrong, but when disagreeing with you,
> that's
> unlikely.)

RR: I was never wrong.  No properly registered gun (Doss' gun
was never registered) has ever been confiscated from otherwise
law abiding citizens in this country.  It was true last year.
And it's still true today.