- Messages
- 2,585
- Reactions
- 7,088
If you weren't listening to Lars today when he mentioned the Haynes Amendment, here you go. I couldn't believe it's true. But it is. From Wiki:
So if IP43 were to pass, criminals are exempt from registering with the State Police, while law abiding citizens are not. How much more idiotic can things get?
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 Firearms 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.
So if IP43 were to pass, criminals are exempt from registering with the State Police, while law abiding citizens are not. How much more idiotic can things get?