RAY wrote:
> 
> Wesley Horton wrote:
> 
> > Ray,
> >
> > I seriously think that you better go back and re-examine the Supreme
> >
> > Courts opinion as released in Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85
> > (1968)
> > Especially this little portion
> > "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 under 5841 or for
> > possession of
> > an unregistered firearm under 5851."
> > You can find and read the entire case at:
> > http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcas
> > .pl?court=US&vol=390&invol=85
> > The language is quite plain.  The ruling does not say that Criminals
> > do
> > not have to register their gun, it says that the fifth amendment
> > provides a full defense to prosecutions for failure to register a
> > firearm under 5841 or possession of an unregistered firearm under
> > 5851.
> > 26 USC 5851 is a part of the National Firearms Act.
> > If you are going to quote U.S.S.C. rulings, please do so accurately.
> 
> RR:  It was not I who said that criminals do not have to
> register their gun.  It was the NRA Winning Team website.
>        I trust you understand what you've written about the
> ruling.  It only says that the fifth amendment provides
> a full defense against EITHER 5841 OR 5851, but not
> both.

RAY's logic impairment crops up again.

"Remember, a ship in harbor is safe, but that is not
            what ships are built for."

   "Give me ambiguity or give me something else!"