The “assault weapon”/gun registration “Loophole”…

Here is a thought…

Wouldn’t the Haynes v. United States SCOTUS ruling be a loophole for any gun registration of any kind – “Assault Weapon” or other wise???

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.

So, since any gun registration law that is passed makes legal gun owners into instant criminals, then wouldn’t complying with said registration be a form of self-incrimination? Certainly this whole amnesty crap that they are trying to do after the fact in Connecticut would fall along those lines, right? If you didn’t comply with the registration and then go forward under “amnesty” (which isn’t even the law) then you would technically be self-incriminating.

Talk amongst yourselves.

*I am not a lawyer. This is not legal advise.

  1. I think Haynes would only apply to prohibited persons, i.e. felons and the insane. Since the act of registering is not an admission of any crime unless you’re prohibited from possessing firearms, being required to register would not be considered a violation of 5A if you’re a law-abiding citizen.

    So essentially, if you’re a felon in possession of any gun, NFA (or state AWB) or not, the most you can be charged with is illegal possession of a gun. You can’t be charged with possession of an unregistered machine gun, “assault weapon”, SBR/SBS, etc. Basically, all those hoops we have to jump through are meaningless. Whether intentional or not, they exist only to create criminals out of us because they have no legal effect on criminals.

    Standard I-am-not-a-lawyer disclaimer here.

    1. I wouldn’t want to be the one to test it, but he may be right. Once the registration is passed then if you are not registered you are by definition a criminal.

  2. It would depend on the effective date of the law banning the weapons. If the law went into effect prior to the registration date then you would be a criminal until you registered.

  3. @Anon I don’t think it would work that way. The sequence of events would be:
    law is passed/registration period begins,
    you do not register/registration period ends,
    you now are breaking the law but aren’t a “prohibited person”,
    you are found to be breaking the registration law at some point in the future,
    your guns are confiscated and you sit in prison,
    you are released but are now a “prohibited person”,
    at this point registration requirements no longer apply to you.
    The fact that your failure to register will put you in violation of the law in the future has no bearing on the fact that registering NOW is not an admission of guilt.

    @Chris I think such a law would be stricken as an ex post facto law or similar. Essentially, it’s criminalizing prior acts, which is not allowed.

    I would suggest not registering guns, but I wouldn’t count on Haynes to save me if I were found out, but IANAL.

Comments are closed.