Semantics

F

Fireatwill

New member
Maybe someone here can help. I have noticed twice in the last few weeks, news stories containing the term "unregistered handgun". Both reports were referencing separate arrests. In one of the reports, the alleged criminal was charged with having an "unregistered handgun". I'm thinking that this term is another misnomer created by the press to identify a handgun purchased from a private citizen. Another stab at the so called gun show loop hole?

What do you folks think? And what does ATF officially consider an unregistered handgun?
 
I would surmise that most handguns, rifles, and shotguns are unregistered simply because Federal laws and most state laws don't require registration. Massachusetts, California, et al., do require registration. So, either the stories originated in one of those restrictive, infringing states or the writer was misleading readers to think all handguns should be registered or the writer editor did know the laws.
 
Just so you know...

If the arrest takes place in a jurisdiction that requires handguns to be registered, then a citizen (with no prior criminal convictions) can be charged with posessing an "unregistered handgun".

BUT, a convicted felon cannot be charged with posessing an unregistered handgun. He can be charged with posession of a firearm (a crime), but he cannot be charged with posession of an "unregistered" weapon, because it would be a violation of his constitutional rights. :eek:

Yes, no matter how foolish it sounds, it is true. A convicted felon, barred by law from posessing a gun, cannot be charged with posessing an unregistered gun, because, registering the gun would violate his 5th Amendment right against self incrimination! Since registering the gun would be an admission of guilt (having the gun), the law cannot compel him to do so, and so cannot charge him for failing to register it.

So, if the news reports are accurate, you can rest assured that the people arrested were not legally prohibited from owning a gun at the time of their arrest!

Such is the world today.
 
Smoke and mirrors.

When someone purchases a handgun in SC, they fill out the form and an instant background check is made without any reference to the type of gun being purchased. One of my FFLs told me he keeps the paperwork for his records, but it doesn't go to SLED or the BATF. Also, there is no license or permit required to purchase a handgun in SC. So - no such thing as an "unregistered gun" in SC.
 
I think a lot of the problem is what folks see on TV, especially these new

forensic crime shows... my favorite NCIS is one of the worse. It seems 'they' can just about track down any gun because it was registered...

the way LEO's actually track a gun after the crime is kind of obvious, if you think about it... they go to the manufacturer with the serial number and then the distributor and then the dealer who will then show them the paper work of who they sold it to... then they go to that individual and go from there....

Now on a totally duffus side... think about registering every gun in the U.S. and how many government jobs that would make, just from the paper work and data base end....
 
then they go to that individual and go from there....
Click to expand...

But with criminals, you usually have a no paperwork FTF transfer somewhere along the line. That blows the whole trace out of the water. Is there anyone here who thinks criminals actually buy guns from an FFL and fill out the forms?
 
Quote:
"Now on a totally duffus side... think about registering every gun in the U.S. and how many government jobs that would make, just from the paper work and data base end...."

Obama did say there were going to be a lot of new jobs created. lol. Maybe that is what he meant. CA State DOJ already has our handguns on file in a database. Or at least, that is what they tell us. Long guns are a different story.
 
Ignorance and prejudice.

Many media people have no idea what they are talking about. Here in PA, there is no license or registration of handguns, but there is a record of sale that is supposed to be kept for a limited time by the state police. Last I heard, they were keeping information for a lot longer than they are legally allowed, and last I heard there is some legal action being taken against this.
any "long gun" sales are not even reported, and can be done privately - handgun sales must go through a dealer in PA.

Many people seem to get their gun knowledge from Law and Order episodes or someplace similar.
I am a published writer, and believe me, you don't need to know what you are talking about to seem like you do.

mark
 
Yes, no matter how foolish it sounds, it is true. A convicted felon, barred by law from posessing a gun, cannot be charged with posessing an unregistered gun, because, registering the gun would violate his 5th Amendment right against self incrimination! Since registering the gun would be an admission of guilt (having the gun), the law cannot compel him to do so, and so cannot charge him for failing to register it.
Click to expand...
Why, that must be the "gun register" loophole!:D
 
Can you give us the Case Law on that, please?
44 AMP
Just so you know...
If the arrest takes place in a jurisdiction that requires handguns to be registered, then a citizen (with no prior criminal convictions) can be charged with posessing an "unregistered handgun".

BUT, a convicted felon cannot be charged with posessing an unregistered handgun. He can be charged with posession of a firearm (a crime), but he cannot be charged with posession of an "unregistered" weapon, because it would be a violation of his constitutional rights.

Yes, no matter how foolish it sounds, it is true. A convicted felon, barred by law from posessing a gun, cannot be charged with posessing an unregistered gun, because, registering the gun would violate his 5th Amendment right against self incrimination! Since registering the gun would be an admission of guilt (having the gun), the law cannot compel him to do so, and so cannot charge him for failing to register it.

So, if the news reports are accurate, you can rest assured that the people arrested were not legally prohibited from owning a gun at the time of their arrest!

Such is the world today.
Click to expand...

44AMP,

With the exception of the last paragraph, I believe your post. I remember reading news stories at the time of a court that ruled that the law requireing a prohibited person from being required to register was unenforceable. Now, I cannot recall what court. Was it a regional appeals court? Or SCOTUS itself?

I think this may be a major issue in the next 4 to 8 years and it would be good to have this knowledge.

Thanks

Lost Sheep

P.S. The media, for all their virtues and utility, do "color" the facts, to raise revenue, and promote agendas. Not the highest duty of the fourth estate, but human nature being what it is, is understandeable. Pity. We do what we can to educate the media and the public.
 
I have a C&R license and I can buy from another C&R holder. I don't need to do a background check; that C&R holder has an FFL 03, a federal license, as do I

So does this mean that technically, a handgun purchased that way is "unregistered"? I bet the media would spin it that way, but my C&R book sure seems to be a register with a federally licensed dealer to me...I guess the rule here is:

"The news media lies to you"
 
Was it a regional appeals court? Or SCOTUS itself?
Click to expand...

It was the US Supreme Court. I remember the decision. A criminal was convicted and appealed all the way to the Supreme Court. The ruling was he couldn't be made to register because it would violate his 5th amendment rights of self incrimination. If I remember right it was an Illinois case and involved their FOID card. He hadn't registered as a firearms owner.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top