[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[quote Eugene]So either Haynes vs. U.S. does not apply as broadly as we think, or it has been superseded (or Mr.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[quote Eugene]So either Haynes vs. U.S. does not apply as broadly as we think, or it has been superseded (or Mr.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][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.

[ucodegen]

[quote=CognitiveDissonance]Interestinly, Switzerland is #3 in guns per capita and still is half the ratio of the US, who is number 1.[/quote]
True, but how many guns does an M-16 or AK-47 count for? The Swiss are allowed to legally own the fully automatic version of these (except for Geneva and Basel). The fully auto versions of these are not allowed to be owned by citizens.

Also Switzerland has a pretty liberal concept of Carry Concealed. It is assume that you should carry them concealed unless you are a money carrier or law enforcement.

[ucodegen]

[quote=CognitiveDissonance]Interestinly, Switzerland is #3 in guns per capita and still is half the ratio of the US, who is number 1.[/quote]
True, but how many guns does an M-16 or AK-47 count for? The Swiss are allowed to legally own the fully automatic version of these (except for Geneva and Basel). The fully auto versions of these are not allowed to be owned by citizens.

Also Switzerland has a pretty liberal concept of Carry Concealed. It is assume that you should carry them concealed unless you are a money carrier or law enforcement.

[ucodegen]

[quote=CognitiveDissonance]Interestinly, Switzerland is #3 in guns per capita and still is half the ratio of the US, who is number 1.[/quote]
True, but how many guns does an M-16 or AK-47 count for? The Swiss are allowed to legally own the fully automatic version of these (except for Geneva and Basel). The fully auto versions of these are not allowed to be owned by citizens.

Also Switzerland has a pretty liberal concept of Carry Concealed. It is assume that you should carry them concealed unless you are a money carrier or law enforcement.

[ucodegen]

[quote=CognitiveDissonance]Interestinly, Switzerland is #3 in guns per capita and still is half the ratio of the US, who is number 1.[/quote]
True, but how many guns does an M-16 or AK-47 count for? The Swiss are allowed to legally own the fully automatic version of these (except for Geneva and Basel). The fully auto versions of these are not allowed to be owned by citizens.

Also Switzerland has a pretty liberal concept of Carry Concealed. It is assume that you should carry them concealed unless you are a money carrier or law enforcement.

[ucodegen]

[quote=CognitiveDissonance]Interestinly, Switzerland is #3 in guns per capita and still is half the ratio of the US, who is number 1.[/quote]
True, but how many guns does an M-16 or AK-47 count for? The Swiss are allowed to legally own the fully automatic version of these (except for Geneva and Basel). The fully auto versions of these are not allowed to be owned by citizens.

Also Switzerland has a pretty liberal concept of Carry Concealed. It is assume that you should carry them concealed unless you are a money carrier or law enforcement.

[ucodegen]

[quote=patb][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]

So, when your parole officer shakes you down and finds the gun, then you do t ime.

Parolees are subject to random search and have no rights as they are under court supervision.[/quote]
Correct, but they can’t be charged with having an unlicensed weapon. They can be charged as a felon in possession though.
The statement that a parolee has no rights is not correct, they have some, but severely limited.

[ucodegen]

[quote=patb][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]

So, when your parole officer shakes you down and finds the gun, then you do t ime.

Parolees are subject to random search and have no rights as they are under court supervision.[/quote]
Correct, but they can’t be charged with having an unlicensed weapon. They can be charged as a felon in possession though.
The statement that a parolee has no rights is not correct, they have some, but severely limited.

[Author]

Posts