Haynes v. United States

[Nuclear Unicorn]

Haynes v. United States

Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (1968), was a United States Supreme Court decision interpreting the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution's self-incrimination clause. Haynes extended the Fifth Amendment protections elucidated in Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 57 (1968).[1]

Background of the case[edit]

The National Firearms Act of 1934 required the registration of certain types of firearms. Miles Edward Haynes was a convicted felon who was charged with failing to register a firearm under the Act. Haynes argued 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.

Majority opinion[edit]

In a 7-1 decision, the Court ruled in 1968 in favor of Haynes. Earl Warren dissented in a one sentence opinion and Thurgood Marshall did not participate in the ruling.

As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled to incriminate themselves through registration.[1][2] The National Firearm Act was amended after Haynes to make it apply only to those who could lawfully possess a firearm. This eliminated prosecution of prohibited persons, such as criminals, and cured the self-incrimination problem. In this new form, the new registration provision was upheld. The court held: " To eliminate the defects revealed by Haynes, Congress amended the Act so that only a possessor who lawfully makes, manufactures, or imports firearms can and must register them", United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601 (1971).[3] The original Haynes decision continues to block state prosecutions of criminals who fail to register guns as required by various state law gun registration schemes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haynes_v._United_States

Thank-you to Virginia_mountainman for the US v Haynes reference in another thread. I had heard this case referenced in the past but didn't know the exact title of the case until he made mention of it in.

[virginia mountainman]

1. Your welcome!

Most people that push these registration schemes have absolutely no clue that it is long settled law that it (gun registration laws) are completely unenforceable, and simply does not apply to criminals...They are ONLY enforceable, and apply to NON-Criminals.... Sort of stupid isn't it?

But pointing out that fact, runs afoul of the dogma, and would be enough to ban you from some star chambers.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

2. "are ONLY enforceable, and apply to NON-Criminals.... Sort of stupid isn't it?"

Not if the agenda is fear-driven, thinking everyone is already a pre-criminal.

But pointing out that fact, runs afoul of the dogma, and would be enough to ban you from some star chambers.

I prefer the term, "whine cellar."

[beevul]

5. Well...

Mos Eisley was already taken...

[NaturalHigh]

3. Absolutely VM.

It's kind of like the infamous Chicago handgun ban. Non-criminals didn't have guns, but criminals never had problems getting their hands on whatever firearms they wanted.

Put more simply, "If you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns."

[Eleanors38]

4. The registration push continues because the issue IS the law-abiding...

There is little concern with violent criminals; they will ALWAYS get guns through the same kind of black market that replaces legalized and regulated commerce. The controllers know this.

The objective is to give the government the tools to ban/confiscate firearms held by the 95% of gun-owners sometime in the future. In the meantime, registration lists -- especially those of concealed-carry -- can be from time to time pried open so gun-owners can be compared to child molestors and subjects of the usual rectal finger painting one finds on the inner tubes. Shame strategies are openly pursued by controllers.

[virginia mountainman]

6. You are very correct..

The objective is to give the government the tools to ban/confiscate firearms

That has been the only reason all along.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

7. It's for some, a step beyond V I Lenin

I call it, the redistribution of blame. The fact is shootings are awful. Gun murders are despised and often looked at differently than other murders. Guns are so very common and the ugly use made of them by the killers is burned into the minds of some folks. The idea that guns can be safe or benign or life-saving or even part of a hobby is a thought bridge that can't be crossed.

The conclusion for these folks is lock the connection between the instrument and the evil. By extension the owners of any of these instruments become partly to blame for any crimes, losses, accidents, suffering, injuries and deaths.

[virginia mountainman]

11. This cartoon explains what your saying, very succinctly..

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

12. seem about what I was thinking

[DonP]

8. I think the "gun control fans" sincerely believe in some kind of weird "Trickle Down" gun control

They really think that reducing/eliminating/banning lawful gun ownership will "eventually" have some sort of impact on criminals.

Fewer law abiding people with guns in their homes means there are fewer out there to steal.

Any criminal activity that results from an unarmed and defenseless populace is just collateral damage ... and since they owned guns, they probably deserved it anyway.

[Eleanors38]

9. I think the measures are not policy-oriented. They use guns as a surrogate...

to go after a hated group and its culture (as they envision such), and more largely, the political entrenchment of the far right. If they have ANY policy concern it is in the obscure radical-left "new man theory" wherein adherents believed a new man would quickly emerge when the ways, beliefs, customs and rules associated with the "old man" were eliminated. A kind of Five Year Plan for societal change. Of course, this hasn't happened, but the very similar functions of prohibitionist politics persist even when the glorious theory of "new man" politics has passed to the dustbin of history.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

10. "Trickle Down" only works when...

...it's associated with my upstairs bathroom.