Question on the court case of Haynes vs. the United States
I was listening to a local radio show when the case of Haynes vs. the United States was mentions and the host went on to say that the importance of this case was that it allows criminals to not have to register any guns that they come into ownership of.
The reasoning is that registering of any weapons would be a form of self incrimination.
Can anyone validate or explain this case and if that is correct?
Supporting my local gun range Chandlers www.marveldcforum.com
Any 9mm pistol ammo becoming available give me a hollar.
That would be secondary any way. Felons are prohibited by law from owning firearms. Does that mean they can lie on a Forum 4477 when buying a firearm? Can they refuse to answer criminal history question and clear a BG check? No!!
The logic behind it is that if they are made to register their weapons, they are forced in incriminate themselves, which is a violation of the 5th Amendment. Ironically, registration itself is a violation of the 2nd Amendment, so there's really no point in that case.