I concede the point! However, as Mike Hass goes on in the next post,
Haynes is still used as a precedent.

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.

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