Wesley Horton wrote:

> I concede the point!

RR:  Thank you.

> However, as Mike Hass goes on in the next post,
> Haynes is still used as a precedent.

RR:  Yes, but it's a precedent that ought never to
be needed.  See my reply to Mike.

> Of course, I think we all recognize that criminals are not going to
> register their firearms or other nefarious interments, and can in theory
> use the 5th as a shield in defense of a prosecution.

RR:  As I wrote to Mike, new registration laws can be written
to avoid this problem.  One thing I didn't mention, however...
What happens, under some future law, if a felon goes in to
register a gun?
         This is a question I also put to the head of the local
ATF office.  He (Jerry Singer) told me what would happen
if this happened today, to a felon trying to register a
machine gun he'd found somewhere.
        Remember, the Haynes precedent would only apply
if the felon is forced to admit a prosecutable crime while in the
act of avoiding the charge of possessing an unregistered
machine gun.
         First of all, the felon would not be allowed to even
begin the registration process, because there is no grace
period existent for machine guns anymore.  He would
be told that his gun is contraband, and that he must leave
it with the ATF.  But no one asks him about his past record
and he need fill out no papers, except to acknowledge the
ATF's receipt of the gun.  His prior possession of the
gun (from the time he found it) is not counted against him.
         If there were a grace period, however, he would be
given a form, which would ask if he is an ex-felon.
Assuming he's truthful, he would say he is, and the ATF
agent would then tell him he can't register the gun,
and must hand it over as contraband.  Again, the felon
has not admitted any crime by attempting to comply
with the law.

>>WH:  And granted that the NRA is stretching the point a bit (Hear that
Jim,

> Volti29!)  I belive that the point the NRA was making was that
> registration of firearms:
> 1. Does not prevent criminal activity.
> 2. Does not aid in the arrest or conviction of criminals using guns.
> 3. Is more of a burden upon lawful gun owners,
> 4. Tends to foster mistrust in Government efforts to fight crime.

RR:  I don't agree with any of those points, but that's a debate
for another day.

> Especially given that there have been cases of American Governments
> utilizing registration rolls to confiscate firearms.

RR: No there haven't.  No properly registered gun has ever been
confiscated from an otherwise law abiding citizen in this country.

> (Granted, the
> examples are very few and limited, but gun owners were promised in New
> York City, that the registration lists would never be used to confiscate
> firearms. Now we find that California MAY be doing the same thing for
> owners of certain SKS rifles with detachable magazines.  Granted, it has
> not happened YET, but there is a seed of doubt.  Given that it is
> estimated that an abysmally small number of people have registered
> "assault weapons" in California, this tells me that there are a bunch of
> people who do not trust the government.)
>
> Regards,
> Wesley Horton