Gun Facts – Your Guide to Debunking Gun Control Myths

[Eugene]

[quote=ucodegen]

Fact: According to the Supreme Court, criminals do not have to obtain licenses or register their weapons, as that would be an act of self-incrimination.
(Haynes vs. U.S. 390 U.S. 85, 1968)

WOW.. Someone had a good attorney.[/quote]

If you’re not allowed to possess a weapon, it seems logical that there should not be a requirement to register any weapon you happen to have illegally. It’s redundant. Just having a weapon is a felony that carries a prison term up to 10 years.

[ucodegen]

[quote=Eugene][quote=ucodegen]

Fact: According to the Supreme Court, criminals do not have to obtain licenses or register their weapons, as that would be an act of self-incrimination.
(Haynes vs. U.S. 390 U.S. 85, 1968)

WOW.. Someone had a good attorney.[/quote]

If you’re not allowed to possess a weapon, it seems logical that there should not be a requirement to register any weapon you happen to have illegally. It’s redundant. Just having a weapon is a felony that carries a prison term up to 10 years.[/quote]
Not exactly. If registering a weapon is a prerequisite to possessing, it does not follow that by being a felon, you are exempted from this. Though you might feel it is redundant, it is a different crime than the possession. If you are driving recklessly AND end up killing someone in the process, you can be charged with both manslaughter and reckless driving. These are separate charges.

What the Supreme court found, was that the act of registering itself would be self-incrimination for the felon, because they would have to identify themselves as being a felon.. who is trying to register a gun. It had nothing to do with being redundant.

Part of the reason I found it all humorous, is that gun registration is portrayed as a way to keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals. If they are not required to register their firearms, then how is gun registration supposed to accomplish this? Brings in a lot of important questions with respect to gun registration and civil rights. Historically, gun registration lists have been used to confiscate firearms owned by citizens.

[ucodegen]

[quote=Eugene][quote=ucodegen]

Fact: According to the Supreme Court, criminals do not have to obtain licenses or register their weapons, as that would be an act of self-incrimination.
(Haynes vs. U.S. 390 U.S. 85, 1968)

WOW.. Someone had a good attorney.[/quote]

If you’re not allowed to possess a weapon, it seems logical that there should not be a requirement to register any weapon you happen to have illegally. It’s redundant. Just having a weapon is a felony that carries a prison term up to 10 years.[/quote]
Not exactly. If registering a weapon is a prerequisite to possessing, it does not follow that by being a felon, you are exempted from this. Though you might feel it is redundant, it is a different crime than the possession. If you are driving recklessly AND end up killing someone in the process, you can be charged with both manslaughter and reckless driving. These are separate charges.

What the Supreme court found, was that the act of registering itself would be self-incrimination for the felon, because they would have to identify themselves as being a felon.. who is trying to register a gun. It had nothing to do with being redundant.

Part of the reason I found it all humorous, is that gun registration is portrayed as a way to keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals. If they are not required to register their firearms, then how is gun registration supposed to accomplish this? Brings in a lot of important questions with respect to gun registration and civil rights. Historically, gun registration lists have been used to confiscate firearms owned by citizens.

[ucodegen]

[quote=Eugene][quote=ucodegen]

Fact: According to the Supreme Court, criminals do not have to obtain licenses or register their weapons, as that would be an act of self-incrimination.
(Haynes vs. U.S. 390 U.S. 85, 1968)

WOW.. Someone had a good attorney.[/quote]

If you’re not allowed to possess a weapon, it seems logical that there should not be a requirement to register any weapon you happen to have illegally. It’s redundant. Just having a weapon is a felony that carries a prison term up to 10 years.[/quote]
Not exactly. If registering a weapon is a prerequisite to possessing, it does not follow that by being a felon, you are exempted from this. Though you might feel it is redundant, it is a different crime than the possession. If you are driving recklessly AND end up killing someone in the process, you can be charged with both manslaughter and reckless driving. These are separate charges.

What the Supreme court found, was that the act of registering itself would be self-incrimination for the felon, because they would have to identify themselves as being a felon.. who is trying to register a gun. It had nothing to do with being redundant.

Part of the reason I found it all humorous, is that gun registration is portrayed as a way to keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals. If they are not required to register their firearms, then how is gun registration supposed to accomplish this? Brings in a lot of important questions with respect to gun registration and civil rights. Historically, gun registration lists have been used to confiscate firearms owned by citizens.

[ucodegen]

[quote=Eugene][quote=ucodegen]

Fact: According to the Supreme Court, criminals do not have to obtain licenses or register their weapons, as that would be an act of self-incrimination.
(Haynes vs. U.S. 390 U.S. 85, 1968)

WOW.. Someone had a good attorney.[/quote]

If you’re not allowed to possess a weapon, it seems logical that there should not be a requirement to register any weapon you happen to have illegally. It’s redundant. Just having a weapon is a felony that carries a prison term up to 10 years.[/quote]
Not exactly. If registering a weapon is a prerequisite to possessing, it does not follow that by being a felon, you are exempted from this. Though you might feel it is redundant, it is a different crime than the possession. If you are driving recklessly AND end up killing someone in the process, you can be charged with both manslaughter and reckless driving. These are separate charges.

What the Supreme court found, was that the act of registering itself would be self-incrimination for the felon, because they would have to identify themselves as being a felon.. who is trying to register a gun. It had nothing to do with being redundant.

Part of the reason I found it all humorous, is that gun registration is portrayed as a way to keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals. If they are not required to register their firearms, then how is gun registration supposed to accomplish this? Brings in a lot of important questions with respect to gun registration and civil rights. Historically, gun registration lists have been used to confiscate firearms owned by citizens.

[ucodegen]

[quote=Eugene][quote=ucodegen]

Fact: According to the Supreme Court, criminals do not have to obtain licenses or register their weapons, as that would be an act of self-incrimination.
(Haynes vs. U.S. 390 U.S. 85, 1968)

WOW.. Someone had a good attorney.[/quote]

If you’re not allowed to possess a weapon, it seems logical that there should not be a requirement to register any weapon you happen to have illegally. It’s redundant. Just having a weapon is a felony that carries a prison term up to 10 years.[/quote]
Not exactly. If registering a weapon is a prerequisite to possessing, it does not follow that by being a felon, you are exempted from this. Though you might feel it is redundant, it is a different crime than the possession. If you are driving recklessly AND end up killing someone in the process, you can be charged with both manslaughter and reckless driving. These are separate charges.

What the Supreme court found, was that the act of registering itself would be self-incrimination for the felon, because they would have to identify themselves as being a felon.. who is trying to register a gun. It had nothing to do with being redundant.

Part of the reason I found it all humorous, is that gun registration is portrayed as a way to keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals. If they are not required to register their firearms, then how is gun registration supposed to accomplish this? Brings in a lot of important questions with respect to gun registration and civil rights. Historically, gun registration lists have been used to confiscate firearms owned by citizens.

[Eugene]

[quote]Not exactly. If registering a weapon is a prerequisite to possessing, it does not follow that by being a felon, you are exempted from this. Though you might feel it is redundant, it is a different crime than the possession. If you are driving recklessly AND end up killing someone in the process, you can be charged with both manslaughter and reckless driving. These are separate charges. [/quote]

Suppose you’re crossing the border from Mexico with an ounce of cocaine in your pocket that you just bought there. You can be arrested because you have an illegal drug, and you can be arrested because you failed to declare something you bought in Mexico. Those are two different crimes, but they are still redundant, the first one much more severe than the second one.

[quote]Part of the reason I found it all humorous, is that gun registration is portrayed as a way to keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals. If they are not required to register their firearms, then how is gun registration supposed to accomplish this?[/quote]

And what if they were required to register their firearms, would that make any difference? Once the criminal is caught with a gun, he goes to prison for a long time whether he registered it or not. Nobody would ever register their guns any more than they would declare cocaine at the border crossing. Felons can’t even _get_ guns legally (the only options are to make it, to steal it, to buy it from another criminal, or to fool a licensed gun dealer somehow – in each case there’s one more felony.)

BTW, I found a case, “581 F.2d 704: United States of America v. Robert Lee Wright, Jr.” from 1978 where the defendant got caught with a sawed-off shotgun in his car during a police stop, and ended up convicted simultaneously for having a gun while being a felon, and for failing to register (and for a few other closely related offenses, adding up to 17 years in prison – all because of a single gun). So either Haynes vs. U.S. does not apply as broadly as we think, or it has been superseded (or Mr. Wright had a bad lawyer).

BTW2, Haynes vs. U.S. refers to 26 USC 5871, which only applies to machineguns, short-barrel shotguns and a few other kinds of weapons. There’s no federal law that mandates registration of handguns. In many states, there are no state laws, either.

[Eugene]

[quote]Not exactly. If registering a weapon is a prerequisite to possessing, it does not follow that by being a felon, you are exempted from this. Though you might feel it is redundant, it is a different crime than the possession. If you are driving recklessly AND end up killing someone in the process, you can be charged with both manslaughter and reckless driving. These are separate charges. [/quote]

Suppose you’re crossing the border from Mexico with an ounce of cocaine in your pocket that you just bought there. You can be arrested because you have an illegal drug, and you can be arrested because you failed to declare something you bought in Mexico. Those are two different crimes, but they are still redundant, the first one much more severe than the second one.

[quote]Part of the reason I found it all humorous, is that gun registration is portrayed as a way to keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals. If they are not required to register their firearms, then how is gun registration supposed to accomplish this?[/quote]

And what if they were required to register their firearms, would that make any difference? Once the criminal is caught with a gun, he goes to prison for a long time whether he registered it or not. Nobody would ever register their guns any more than they would declare cocaine at the border crossing. Felons can’t even _get_ guns legally (the only options are to make it, to steal it, to buy it from another criminal, or to fool a licensed gun dealer somehow – in each case there’s one more felony.)

BTW, I found a case, “581 F.2d 704: United States of America v. Robert Lee Wright, Jr.” from 1978 where the defendant got caught with a sawed-off shotgun in his car during a police stop, and ended up convicted simultaneously for having a gun while being a felon, and for failing to register (and for a few other closely related offenses, adding up to 17 years in prison – all because of a single gun). So either Haynes vs. U.S. does not apply as broadly as we think, or it has been superseded (or Mr. Wright had a bad lawyer).

BTW2, Haynes vs. U.S. refers to 26 USC 5871, which only applies to machineguns, short-barrel shotguns and a few other kinds of weapons. There’s no federal law that mandates registration of handguns. In many states, there are no state laws, either.

[Eugene]

[quote]Not exactly. If registering a weapon is a prerequisite to possessing, it does not follow that by being a felon, you are exempted from this. Though you might feel it is redundant, it is a different crime than the possession. If you are driving recklessly AND end up killing someone in the process, you can be charged with both manslaughter and reckless driving. These are separate charges. [/quote]

Suppose you’re crossing the border from Mexico with an ounce of cocaine in your pocket that you just bought there. You can be arrested because you have an illegal drug, and you can be arrested because you failed to declare something you bought in Mexico. Those are two different crimes, but they are still redundant, the first one much more severe than the second one.

[quote]Part of the reason I found it all humorous, is that gun registration is portrayed as a way to keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals. If they are not required to register their firearms, then how is gun registration supposed to accomplish this?[/quote]

And what if they were required to register their firearms, would that make any difference? Once the criminal is caught with a gun, he goes to prison for a long time whether he registered it or not. Nobody would ever register their guns any more than they would declare cocaine at the border crossing. Felons can’t even _get_ guns legally (the only options are to make it, to steal it, to buy it from another criminal, or to fool a licensed gun dealer somehow – in each case there’s one more felony.)

BTW, I found a case, “581 F.2d 704: United States of America v. Robert Lee Wright, Jr.” from 1978 where the defendant got caught with a sawed-off shotgun in his car during a police stop, and ended up convicted simultaneously for having a gun while being a felon, and for failing to register (and for a few other closely related offenses, adding up to 17 years in prison – all because of a single gun). So either Haynes vs. U.S. does not apply as broadly as we think, or it has been superseded (or Mr. Wright had a bad lawyer).

BTW2, Haynes vs. U.S. refers to 26 USC 5871, which only applies to machineguns, short-barrel shotguns and a few other kinds of weapons. There’s no federal law that mandates registration of handguns. In many states, there are no state laws, either.

[Eugene]

[quote]Not exactly. If registering a weapon is a prerequisite to possessing, it does not follow that by being a felon, you are exempted from this. Though you might feel it is redundant, it is a different crime than the possession. If you are driving recklessly AND end up killing someone in the process, you can be charged with both manslaughter and reckless driving. These are separate charges. [/quote]

Suppose you’re crossing the border from Mexico with an ounce of cocaine in your pocket that you just bought there. You can be arrested because you have an illegal drug, and you can be arrested because you failed to declare something you bought in Mexico. Those are two different crimes, but they are still redundant, the first one much more severe than the second one.

[quote]Part of the reason I found it all humorous, is that gun registration is portrayed as a way to keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals. If they are not required to register their firearms, then how is gun registration supposed to accomplish this?[/quote]

And what if they were required to register their firearms, would that make any difference? Once the criminal is caught with a gun, he goes to prison for a long time whether he registered it or not. Nobody would ever register their guns any more than they would declare cocaine at the border crossing. Felons can’t even _get_ guns legally (the only options are to make it, to steal it, to buy it from another criminal, or to fool a licensed gun dealer somehow – in each case there’s one more felony.)

BTW, I found a case, “581 F.2d 704: United States of America v. Robert Lee Wright, Jr.” from 1978 where the defendant got caught with a sawed-off shotgun in his car during a police stop, and ended up convicted simultaneously for having a gun while being a felon, and for failing to register (and for a few other closely related offenses, adding up to 17 years in prison – all because of a single gun). So either Haynes vs. U.S. does not apply as broadly as we think, or it has been superseded (or Mr. Wright had a bad lawyer).

BTW2, Haynes vs. U.S. refers to 26 USC 5871, which only applies to machineguns, short-barrel shotguns and a few other kinds of weapons. There’s no federal law that mandates registration of handguns. In many states, there are no state laws, either.

[Eugene]

[quote]Not exactly. If registering a weapon is a prerequisite to possessing, it does not follow that by being a felon, you are exempted from this. Though you might feel it is redundant, it is a different crime than the possession. If you are driving recklessly AND end up killing someone in the process, you can be charged with both manslaughter and reckless driving. These are separate charges. [/quote]

Suppose you’re crossing the border from Mexico with an ounce of cocaine in your pocket that you just bought there. You can be arrested because you have an illegal drug, and you can be arrested because you failed to declare something you bought in Mexico. Those are two different crimes, but they are still redundant, the first one much more severe than the second one.

[quote]Part of the reason I found it all humorous, is that gun registration is portrayed as a way to keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals. If they are not required to register their firearms, then how is gun registration supposed to accomplish this?[/quote]

And what if they were required to register their firearms, would that make any difference? Once the criminal is caught with a gun, he goes to prison for a long time whether he registered it or not. Nobody would ever register their guns any more than they would declare cocaine at the border crossing. Felons can’t even _get_ guns legally (the only options are to make it, to steal it, to buy it from another criminal, or to fool a licensed gun dealer somehow – in each case there’s one more felony.)

BTW, I found a case, “581 F.2d 704: United States of America v. Robert Lee Wright, Jr.” from 1978 where the defendant got caught with a sawed-off shotgun in his car during a police stop, and ended up convicted simultaneously for having a gun while being a felon, and for failing to register (and for a few other closely related offenses, adding up to 17 years in prison – all because of a single gun). So either Haynes vs. U.S. does not apply as broadly as we think, or it has been superseded (or Mr. Wright had a bad lawyer).

BTW2, Haynes vs. U.S. refers to 26 USC 5871, which only applies to machineguns, short-barrel shotguns and a few other kinds of weapons. There’s no federal law that mandates registration of handguns. In many states, there are no state laws, either.

[ucodegen]

[quote Eugene]So either Haynes vs. U.S. does not apply as broadly as we think, or it has been superseded (or Mr. Wright had a bad lawyer).[/quote]
I think it might be that he didn’t have as good a lawyer as Haynes, or Mr. Wright’s lawyer was not paying attention. We have seen an example where in-attentiveness has happened.. Check the docket.. see the note saying “pro se.” next to Rober Lee Wright Jr’s name? This means that he was representing himself.

NOTE:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/390/85/
Quoting:

Petitioner was charged by information with violating 26 U.S.C. § 5851 (part of the National Firearms Act, an interrelated statutory system for the taxation of certain classes of firearms used principally by persons engaged in unlawful activities)

I italicized for emphasis.
ALSO from the decision:

A proper claim of the privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register under sec. 5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under sec. 5851.

Considering that the basis of the argument was: “That, because he was a convicted felon and thus prohibited from owning a firearm, requiring him to register was essentially requiring him to make an open admission to the government that he was in violation of the law, which was thus a violation of his right not to incriminate himself.”, and the Supreme Court essentially agreed, it is likely to extend past just the statute involved.. as do most Supreme Court decisions.

[ucodegen]

[quote Eugene]So either Haynes vs. U.S. does not apply as broadly as we think, or it has been superseded (or Mr. Wright had a bad lawyer).[/quote]
I think it might be that he didn’t have as good a lawyer as Haynes, or Mr. Wright’s lawyer was not paying attention. We have seen an example where in-attentiveness has happened.. Check the docket.. see the note saying “pro se.” next to Rober Lee Wright Jr’s name? This means that he was representing himself.

NOTE:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/390/85/
Quoting:

Petitioner was charged by information with violating 26 U.S.C. § 5851 (part of the National Firearms Act, an interrelated statutory system for the taxation of certain classes of firearms used principally by persons engaged in unlawful activities)

I italicized for emphasis.
ALSO from the decision:

A proper claim of the privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register under sec. 5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under sec. 5851.

Considering that the basis of the argument was: “That, because he was a convicted felon and thus prohibited from owning a firearm, requiring him to register was essentially requiring him to make an open admission to the government that he was in violation of the law, which was thus a violation of his right not to incriminate himself.”, and the Supreme Court essentially agreed, it is likely to extend past just the statute involved.. as do most Supreme Court decisions.

[ucodegen]

[quote Eugene]So either Haynes vs. U.S. does not apply as broadly as we think, or it has been superseded (or Mr. Wright had a bad lawyer).[/quote]
I think it might be that he didn’t have as good a lawyer as Haynes, or Mr. Wright’s lawyer was not paying attention. We have seen an example where in-attentiveness has happened.. Check the docket.. see the note saying “pro se.” next to Rober Lee Wright Jr’s name? This means that he was representing himself.

NOTE:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/390/85/
Quoting:

Petitioner was charged by information with violating 26 U.S.C. § 5851 (part of the National Firearms Act, an interrelated statutory system for the taxation of certain classes of firearms used principally by persons engaged in unlawful activities)

I italicized for emphasis.
ALSO from the decision:

A proper claim of the privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register under sec. 5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under sec. 5851.

Considering that the basis of the argument was: “That, because he was a convicted felon and thus prohibited from owning a firearm, requiring him to register was essentially requiring him to make an open admission to the government that he was in violation of the law, which was thus a violation of his right not to incriminate himself.”, and the Supreme Court essentially agreed, it is likely to extend past just the statute involved.. as do most Supreme Court decisions.

[ucodegen]

[quote Eugene]So either Haynes vs. U.S. does not apply as broadly as we think, or it has been superseded (or Mr. Wright had a bad lawyer).[/quote]
I think it might be that he didn’t have as good a lawyer as Haynes, or Mr. Wright’s lawyer was not paying attention. We have seen an example where in-attentiveness has happened.. Check the docket.. see the note saying “pro se.” next to Rober Lee Wright Jr’s name? This means that he was representing himself.

NOTE:
http://supreme.justia.com/us/390/85/
Quoting:

Petitioner was charged by information with violating 26 U.S.C. § 5851 (part of the National Firearms Act, an interrelated statutory system for the taxation of certain classes of firearms used principally by persons engaged in unlawful activities)

I italicized for emphasis.
ALSO from the decision:

A proper claim of the privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register under sec. 5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under sec. 5851.

Considering that the basis of the argument was: “That, because he was a convicted felon and thus prohibited from owning a firearm, requiring him to register was essentially requiring him to make an open admission to the government that he was in violation of the law, which was thus a violation of his right not to incriminate himself.”, and the Supreme Court essentially agreed, it is likely to extend past just the statute involved.. as do most Supreme Court decisions.

[Author]

Posts