Mike Haas wrote:

> RAY wrote:
> >       And any registration law which doesn't force someone
> > to admit a criminal act while avoiding another crime
> > also would avoid the 'double jeopardy' problem in the NFA.
> >       That's why modern state registration laws have grace
> > periods.  You can't be charged with having possessed an
> > unregistered weapon when you finally go in to
> > register it.  (the specific problem in Haynes).
>
> But Ray, that's exactly what's happening with Roberti-Roos and
> Lungren's grace periodm first SKS Sporters, now any "AW" registered
> after March 30, 1992.  They are being threatened with felony
> prosecution even AFTER they relinquish the "illegal assault weapon
> they were in possession of.

RR:  Actually, no one has threatened them with prosecution.
I really don't think that's going to happen.  Too messy for
the politicians.  But you're right: IF they are prosecuted
after ridding themselves of their Sporters, then they could apply
the Haynes decision in their defense.
       Besides the self-incrimination issue, there are other obvious
defenses which such Sporter owners could employ. Some have
already been mentioned in tpg.  One has not:

  "The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute,
though having the form and name of law, is in reality no
law, but is void, and ineffective for any purpose, since
unconstitutionality dates from the time of it's enactment
and not merely from the date of the decision so branding
it... No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law, and
no courts are bound to enforce it."
           ---- 16 Am Jur 2d, Sec 177 late 2d, Sec 256

RR:   Since the Cal. SC has ruled the post-1992 registrations
invalid, this could be interpreted in the same way... that
anything dealing with those registrations must be erased
and never used for a lawful purpose.  The registrations must
be considered as if they never had existed.  Even the
act of sending out notices now to those individuals by using
their registration addresses could be unconstitutional.
       And  any names collected by the registration
of SKS Sporters after 1992 could not be used to investigate
or prosecute crimes against those individuals.

>>     And after the grace period ends, and you've failed

> > to register the gun, you are not allowed to register
> > the weapon anymore.  So at that point, you can't be
> > charged with failing to register the gun.  You can
> > only be charged with the act of possessing an
> > unregistered gun.  Again, the modern law avoids the
> > 'double-jeopardy' problem in the NFA.
>
> It certainly does not.  The thousands of SKS owners *WERE*
> in danger of felony prosecution until the state passed
> Wright's SKS Indemnification Act last year to stop it.

RR:  Ahhh... but THOSE owners were in a pre-1992
category.  They had NOT been required to register
their guns, thus they had not been forced by a
registration law to admit information that could
be used to prosecute them under another law.  There
was no double-jeopardy and no self-incrimination.
       The Cal. AG doesn't even have their names.

> >       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.
>
> They cannot be prosecuted for doing so.  The assertion is valid.

RR:  They can avoid prosecution if the legal process
of registration forces them to admit that they have
committed a crime that could lead to prosecution.
     But there is nothing on any of the forms that asks if
you've knocked over a 7-11 lately  :-)
        There is only the question (in this regard) that
asks if they are ex-felons.  They don't have to admit
that (in which case they give up the gun without
penalty), but even if they DID admit they were ex-felons,
it would not lead to prosecution for another crime.
        Sorry, Mike, You and the NRA are wrong.  But
care to try again???