--------------EF3ACAB51226DB7D5A93B5E6
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

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/getcase.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.
      The issue in Haynes was self-incrimination.  In other
words, by attempting to comply with one part of the NFA '34
law, was the defendant exposing himself to violation of
another law?  Law 5841 obliged the possessor to register the
'defined' gun.  Law 5851 punished anyone possessing a
non-registered 'defined' gun. Thus, by coming in to register
such a weapon, the possessor would be automatically exposing
himself to the charge that he had, prior to this, illegally
possessed that gun.  There was no longer a 'grace' period.
     This 'double jeopardy' type of law (and the subsequent
court ruling) at the time did not just apply to criminals (a
misconception by the gun lobby).  It applied to everyone.
So solve the dilemma, the Supreme Court ruled that if you
were to come in to register a 'defined' gun under 5841, you
could properly assert a claim of privilege against
self-incrimination to avoid prosecution for violating 5851.
And if you were arrested and charged with 5851, you could
likewise claim the same priviledge against prosecution under
5841.
     The Haynes decision occurred just a few
months before enactment of the GCA '68, which changed the
laws sufficiently as to make the entire Haynes issue mute.




--------------EF3ACAB51226DB7D5A93B5E6
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit



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/getcase.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.
      The issue in Haynes was self-incrimination. 
In other
words, by attempting to comply with one part of the NFA '34
law, was the defendant exposing himself to violation of
another law?  Law 5841 obliged the possessor to register the
'defined' gun.  Law 5851 punished anyone possessing a
non-registered 'defined' gun. Thus, by coming in to register
such a weapon, the possessor would be automatically exposing
himself to the charge that he had, prior to this, illegally
possessed that gun.  There was no longer a 'grace' period.
     This 'double jeopardy' type of law (and the
subsequent
court ruling) at the time did not just apply to criminals (a
misconception by the gun lobby).  It applied to everyone.
So solve the dilemma, the Supreme Court ruled that if you
were to come in to register a 'defined' gun under 5841, you
could properly assert a claim of privilege against
self-incrimination to avoid prosecution for violating 5851.
And if you were arrested and charged with 5851, you could
likewise claim the same priviledge against prosecution under
5841.
     The Haynes decision occurred just a few
months before enactment of the GCA '68, which changed the
laws sufficiently as to make the entire Haynes issue mute.
 
 
 

--------------EF3ACAB51226DB7D5A93B5E6--