Felons not legally required to register their firearms

[Dale00]

Is this correct? It is making the rounds via forwarded e-mails.

Why Convicted Felon's Don't, Won't, Have to Register Their Firearms.

U.S. Supreme Court's 1968 Haynes v. U.S. decision:
Haynes, a convicted felon, was convicted of unlawful possession of an
unregistered short-barreled shotgun. He argued that for a convicted felon to
register a gun was effectively an announcement to the government that he was
breaking the law and that registration violated his Fifth Amendment
protection against self-incrimination. The court, by an 7 - 1 margin,
agreed, concluding:
"We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against
self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for
failure to register a firearm. or for possession of an unregistered firearm."
(Summary from American Rifleman, March 2000, page 20)

So, when these gun registration schemes are announced, be aware that only
lawful gun-owners are required to register their firearms.
Unlawful owners are exempted from registration laws due to their
constitutional protection against self-incrimination.

Click on link:
Haynes v. United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Johnny]

that's messed up. Did they still send him to prison for possession?

 

[vvvvvvv]

This is why Oklahoma doesn't require the possessor or seller to be the one to obtain a marijuana tax stamp - it's just required that the stamp be affixed to the product.

 

[aviator41]

This would be a bit like a DUI driver being required to call ahead so the arresting officer knows where he will be or a meth cooker notifying the local fire department that they are in posession of large quantities of chemicals that essentially make a home a bomb.

This is looking beyond the crime of a convicted felon possessing a firearm.

 

[ripnbst]

So to get creative with this...

As soon as they outlaw the possession of all these "assault" weapons on the "lists" they want us to turn in, and we dont turn them in, we cant be faulted for possessing them after the fact.

 

[aviator41]

They can't make a law retroactive. In your example, 'they' would require current owners to register as well as any future owners. It's called an 'Ex Post Facto' law - and it can't happen under our constitution.

In the United States, the Congress is prohibited from passing ex post facto laws by clause 3 of Article I, Section 9 of the United States Constitution

Edit: Because I know someone will jump on this. yes, there are a few situations where ex post facto laws are legal and have taken effect. the particular scenario outline by ripnbst is what I refer to. They cannot make an ex post facto law that requires all current owners to surrender 'assault' weapons - whatever their definition becomes for those.

 

[cmhbob]

IIRC, this case and the Fifth Amendment have also been used to avoid prosecution for lying on the 4473. I think the offense includes the element of "knowingly" falsifying, and part of proving that requires the person to testify that he knew he was not allowed to possess a firearm. But so testifying violates the 5A right, so he can't be forced to testify to that.

 

[SMS]

My understanding is that this 1968 case is what led to, or at least was a key element in, the Gun Control Act of 1968.

Felons can't own guns anyway....so does it really matter that any new gun registration doesn't apply to them?

 

[tRidiot]

Didn't they make people register as sex crimes offenders even if they were convicted prior to the implementation of registries?

 

[vvvvvvv]

Didn't they make people register as sex crimes offenders even if they were convicted prior to the implementation of registries?

Yep. Ex post facto.