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.

>        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.

>       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.

>       That's why the website's characterization,
> was a lie.

Keep tryin' Ray.  Not creative enough yet.

Cheers,

Mike Haas