dalriaden
10-22-2011, 11:59 PM
Is this law still on the books?
The U.S. Supreme ruled in the case of Hayes v. U.S. (390 U.S. 85, 1968) that because it would be incriminating, a criminal cannot be required to register a gun or be charged with possession of an unregistered gun. The Court said,
We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecution either for failure to register a firearm ... or for possession of an unregistered firearm.
:confused:
They can't be charged with possession of an unlicensed firearm, because they can't register a firearm, because its illegal for them to own a firearm, and by attempting to register it, they'd be admitting to a crime. Is that the correct interpretation of the legalise?
The U.S. Supreme ruled in the case of Hayes v. U.S. (390 U.S. 85, 1968) that because it would be incriminating, a criminal cannot be required to register a gun or be charged with possession of an unregistered gun. The Court said,
We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecution either for failure to register a firearm ... or for possession of an unregistered firearm.
:confused:
They can't be charged with possession of an unlicensed firearm, because they can't register a firearm, because its illegal for them to own a firearm, and by attempting to register it, they'd be admitting to a crime. Is that the correct interpretation of the legalise?