Hayes vs US

[dalriaden]

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.

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?

[nick]

See, I knew criminals had more rights than we do

Now, by that logic, if a person possesses an unlicensed firearm, and that's a crime wherever that person lives, wouldn't that make such a person a criminal, and thus this person cannot be charged with possessing an unlicensed firearm? Yeah, I know, I know, one has to be convicted first. Still, a nice thought experiment, a.k.a. mental masturbation.

[press1280]

United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601, 605 (1971)

The NFA was amended after Haynes, and Freed pretty much has made Haynes a dead letter. Or at least that's how I read it.

[Crom]

Congress amended the NFA after Haynes exposed problems with the law as written.

Freed was the grenade case from California if I remember right.

[Anchors]

Well it kind of follows to an extent in this way here:
You can't be convicted for failing to properly register a handgun if the crime was only discovered because you filled out a VolReg to get it legal.

That is just California though and I think they only did it to encourage registration and it has nothing to do with the federal case.

[Wherryj]

See, I knew criminals had more rights than we do

Now, by that logic, if a person possesses an unlicensed firearm, and that's a crime wherever that person lives, wouldn't that make such a person a criminal, and thus this person cannot be charged with possessing an unlicensed firearm? Yeah, I know, I know, one has to be convicted first. Still, a nice thought experiment, a.k.a. mental masturbation.

Yes, the trick to this situation is that one must KNOWINGLY become a criminal FIRST.

For those of us who are honest, upright citizens and not "smart" enough to work this correctly, we can get charged by failing to become a criminal before getting charged with gun possession.