Guess who's exempt from firearms registrtion?

C

Cougar

New member
From Middle American News April 2000 edition:

When any one of the run registration scemes now under discussion in the backrooms of the nation's capital becomes law, there's one group that won't have to obey it.

If you think that means the FBI, DEA, Secret Service, the military, or even the politicians, you're wrong.

By law, the only group exempt from gun registration includes murderers, rapists, muggers, burglars, all manner of thieves, and even convicted tax cheats. In fact, the exemption applies to any convicted felon.

Thanks to the US Supreme Court, convicted felons don't have to register their guns. Only squeaky-clean, law-abiding people have to obey.

In 1968 the Supreme Court declared in Hayes v. U.S. (390 U.S. 85, 1968) that because it would be self-incriminating, a criminal cannot be required to register his gun, nor even be criminally charged with possession on an unregistered gun.

Under the Fifth Amendment, no person can be compelled to testify against himself. Since felons aren't allowed to own guns, run registration does not apply to them, says the Supreme Court.

Since criminals do not have to register their guns, the only possible purpose of firearms registration is to pave the way for confiscation. And in reality, that is the history of gun registration in the U.S.

England and Australia have already confiscated the guns that years earlier had been registered by law-abiding gun owners.

The pattern is now repeating itself in the U.S.

In New York City, owners of certain kinds of semi-automatic rifles were required to register them for a small fee. Several years later, the city council voted to outlaw the regiseted weapons and sent notices to the owners, warning that the weapons must be rendered inoperable. Violators faced fines and imprisonment.

--------------------------------------



------------------
Remember, just because you are not paranoid doesn't mean they are not out to get you!
 
quelle surprise

Of course, felons are de facto exempt from voluntary gun turn-ins as well. Unless they really, really need that gift certificate from the foot locker.

I wonder if any of the sheeple leaving the site of one of those guns-for-Air-Jordans PR shindigs have ever been robbed of their new shoes at gunpoint. The irony would be delightful.

------------------
Tamara's House o' Weapons: If we can't kill it, it's immortal.
10mm: It's not the size of the Dawg in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog!
 
I think the government re-wrote the gun registration law, forbidding police access to the registration records (or something like that), therefore it is no longer self-incrimination. If a felon registers, nothing can be done to them.

It's still a hilarious ruling, but I think if the gov. words the law properly (so that felons can't be prosecuted for registering) they can be punished for breaking the law.
 
tamara,

Two interesting things happened on the way to, and from, the gun turn-ins.

The Connecticut cash for guns program was put on indefinite hold after they offered $100 for any "assault weapon". A man went to the local sporting goods shop and bought 40 SKS Chinese rifles which were on sale for $70. He then went and turned them in, brand new and never fired, for $100 each. His take? $1200 for two hours work.

Another turn-in offered $25 for any weapon, no questions asked. Two gangsters turned in a non-working sawed-off shotgun and then bought a working handgun from another person who was going to turn it in. They then committed a murder with the working handgun.

------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.
 
Another good read besides Haynes is MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105.

Murdock, while a First Amendment religious freedom case, states that the government may not license or register a right guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Sound familiar?

------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.
 
Besides Haynes, another goo read is MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA, 319 U.S. 105

In Murdock, the court ruled that the government may not license or register a right guaranteed by the Bill of Rights.

Although it was a First Amendment religious freedom case it would have value in a Second Amendment case also.

------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.
 
By the by. Take heart. When you fail to register your firearms, you become a criminal, and are fully protected by the Haynes decision. Go figure.

------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.
 
Excellent article and points Cougar and Jimpeel.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but these rulings and illustrations seem to demonstrate that gun laws have far more negetive affect upon the law abiding decent citizens than they do to protect the law abiding from the violent criminal element.

If this is the case, then WHY are so many gun owners pushing for ENFORCEMENT of current gun laws, than for REPEAL of current gun laws.

As a personal note, it really doesn't bother me to know that many criminals on the street go armed. The thing that bothers me most is that those in authority who have been perceived as the source of our protection have ruled repeatedly in favor of restricting our rights to the means of self defense. Hence, they are acting to aid the criminal element in achieving their vicious goals. If the vicious criminal element is going armed, we should have the liberty to equalize the odds and do likewise.

robert

BTW Jimpeel, Your "gun control" proposition is absolutely RIGHT.

------------------
"But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip; and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." -Jesus Christ (Luke 22:36, see John 3:15-18)
---------------------------
"Reasonable gun law?............There's No such critter!" --EQ

[This message has been edited by EQUALIZER (edited April 16, 2000).]
 
It's a sandwich deal with the unarmed masses caught between a corrupt government and criminals.

I am going take an excerpt from a pro-freedom magazine -- "The New American" of April 4,1994. "After racist gunman Colin Ferguson killed six persons and wounded 17 others on a crowded New York commuter train on December 7, 1993, President Clinton and other gun control lobbyists jumped on the incident to call for additional gun controls. Yet it was New York's Sullivan law, which precludes the carrying of concealed weapons by ordinary citizens, that assured there would be no one on the train adequately prepared to defend against Ferguson's attack. (For his part, Ferguson had obtained his gun legally in California after passing the Golden State's 15-day waiting period.)"
 
jimpeel, here's the case you mentioned:
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=319&invol=105

Reading through it, it does say the government cannot charge a fee for a liscense to exersice a right (a religious group selling literature a for a small amount of money). However, in my skimming of the decision, I did NOT notice that it forbade registration or liscensing, just the charging of money for such. So, charging money for a gun permit should be unconsitional, but on the basis of this decision, I am uncertain we could claim the permit is unconstiutional (though we have other constitutional reasons not concerning this decision.) It is possible I missed a blanket prohibition of permits and registering.

Does anyone care to address my previous point that, if the law is worded to deny access of the records to police/prosecutors, then gun registration does not infringe the prohibition against self-incrimination? I think they changed the wording of the machine-gun/sawed off law to accomadate this decision.
 
Sooner or later we'll all be felons in the eyes of un-Constitutional legislators and their enforcers. You just have to look at it that way. That makes us exempt de-facto.

If you are currently following any gun laws that infringe upon the 2nd Amendment, you'll be the easiest to track down. Your pride will make you a beacon in the night, as you murmur those ignored words, "But officer, I'm a law abiding citizen!"

You have to just say shove it. I'm either a "FREE" man or I'm a slave. Slaves have masters that control their subjects. Free men do not need anyone telling them what they should do, or not do, what they can own, or not own, which bread line they must stand in, or not stand in.

As for registration...register THIS!
 
BTR,

Although there is much to be stated on the fact that this case was a decision on the establishment of a fee or tax for the free excercise of a right guaranteed by the Constitution and Bill of Rights, it could readily be applied to any registration or fee structure imposed for the ownership of firearms.

The NFA34 fee, in actuality a tax, on the possession of a fully automatic firearm is such a fee and is being challenged by the 1934 group.

It can be readily assumed that any scheme for licensure would include a fee as its cornerstone.

Here in Massachusetts, we have to pay a fee of twenty-five dollars, and have our fingerprints and mugshot placed on the state criminal database just to own a firearm, mace, BB gun, etc. I should think that such a scheme runs afoul of Murdock.

What is lacking is challenge.

------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.


[This message has been edited by jimpeel (edited April 17, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by jimpeel (edited April 17, 2000).]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top