Mike Haas wrote:

> To continue, Haynes is still active precendent and becomes
> very relevant as soon as a registration scheme is required.
> Haynes is important anytime pre-68-NFA-like registration is
> instituted...
>
> ----------
> "...Before the NFA was changed in 1968, as part of the Gun
> Control Act of 1968, one could register unregistered existing
> weapons, however it meant you were admitting to possessing an
> unregistered weapon.  In fact the law required it, which was a
> reason the US Supreme Court used in gutting the registration
> scheme of the pre-68 NFA in Haynes v. US, 390 U.S. 85 (1968).
> (It violated the 5th amendment right against compelling
> self-incrimination.)..."

RR: You're absolutely right.  However, future registration
laws need not fall into the same trap as the NFA.  The
1968 law, for instance, required the seller to register
the machine gun transfer, thus registration was
accomplished without the buyer admitting incrimination.
      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).
       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.
      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.
      That's why the website's characterization,
was a lie.