CDZ If registering guns is Okay, then why not make everyone submit DNA to the police?

[2aguy]

Mother Jones uses the criteria of the FBI, you don't.... you want to use whatever you want to inflate the numbers from actual mass public shootings.....you are lying.

That is an astoundingly absurd comment, void of all validity!

Haynes will not allow criminals caught with illegal guns to be prosecuted for not registering those guns.

That is just false on its face! All Haynes v. US was based sound Constitutional principles. § 5841 and § 5851 of the 1934 National Firearms Act required ALL automatic weapons be registered. Haynes was convicted felon without his Constitutional rights to possess firearms, but he did have an automatic weapon. He was arrested and charged for failure to register his automatic firearm. His trial reached SCOTUS and the decision reached was the basis in which the 1934 Act was written. The prosecution had earlier dropped another charge of unlawful possession of the weapon so by the time it reached the High Court only the failure to register charge remained.

Cutting to the chase, because he was REQUIRED to register the firearm per the 1934 Act which included EVERYONE simply in possession, which set up the Constitutional conflict. To register the firearm he had to incriminate himself and divulge he was a convicted felon with a firearm OR face a charge of perjury and unlawful possession of a firearm or perhaps both. The final decision was this set up the situation of self-incrimination if he followed the law, the Constitutional conflict between differences in statuary law and the Constitution.

That Constitutional conundrum was fixed the same year of the decision and the 1934 Act was amended by Congress changing the registration requirements to apply to ONLY lawfully possessed weapons. Your claim, "Haynes will not allow criminals caught with illegal guns to be prosecuted for not registering those guns" is false, wrong and in error, holding no truth whatsoever! Therefore, your Amendment XIV claim is equally as the Haynes sophistry as you have fouled its anchor in the law.

You think you are clever because you show that a criminal arrested with an illegal gun will still be arrested for the illegal gun......and that isn't the point.

That makes absolutely no sense to a person from this planet and era, but you're correct that that isn't the point...and a dead clock is right 14 times per week.

As Haynes states and you actually show, they will not be charged for not registering their illegal guns, that would violate their 5th Amendment Right against self incrimination.

Your assertions are wrong, in error and untrue! There is no legal basis for any person in unlawful possession of a firearm to consider registration of the weapon nor has there been for the last 50 years since the 1934 Act was amended in 1968! You're tilting at windmills!

Law abiding gun owners, who can legally possess the gun, will be arrested, charged and convicted if they do not register their legal gun.

Registration of ALL legal firearms is now mandatory you claim? Even if that bloated exaggeration were true, so what? If you weren't law abiding that would be a concern for those who are so concerned about access to weaponry.

That is the issue. Registration targets law abiding gun owners....so again, it does not help stop or solve crimes.

Tissue?

You don't see how stupid you point is....

That Constitutional conundrum was fixed the same year of the decision and the 1934 Act was amended by Congress changing the registration requirements to apply to ONLY lawfully possessed weapons.


Yes..... he could not be forced to register an illegally possessed gun... he could be arrested and convicted of possessing the illegal gun... Haynes determined he could not be charged and convicted for not registering that illegal gun.... yes, we have been through this...

The stupid aspect of gun registration is that the criminal with the actual, illegal gun, will not be prosecuted for not registering the gun... he could commit rape, robbery and murder with the gun and get charged for those.... but he can't be charged for not registering the gun.

Meanwhile.... John and Jayne Q. Citizen, who own a gun but who did not use it in any illegal way, who own it legally, can be arrested, charged and convicted if they fail to register their illegal gun...

And there in lies the stupidity of gun registration.

 

[2aguy]

Mother Jones uses the criteria of the FBI, you don't.... you want to use whatever you want to inflate the numbers from actual mass public shootings.....you are lying.

That is an astoundingly absurd comment, void of all validity!

Haynes will not allow criminals caught with illegal guns to be prosecuted for not registering those guns.

That is just false on its face! All Haynes v. US was based sound Constitutional principles. § 5841 and § 5851 of the 1934 National Firearms Act required ALL automatic weapons be registered. Haynes was convicted felon without his Constitutional rights to possess firearms, but he did have an automatic weapon. He was arrested and charged for failure to register his automatic firearm. His trial reached SCOTUS and the decision reached was the basis in which the 1934 Act was written. The prosecution had earlier dropped another charge of unlawful possession of the weapon so by the time it reached the High Court only the failure to register charge remained.

Cutting to the chase, because he was REQUIRED to register the firearm per the 1934 Act which included EVERYONE simply in possession, which set up the Constitutional conflict. To register the firearm he had to incriminate himself and divulge he was a convicted felon with a firearm OR face a charge of perjury and unlawful possession of a firearm or perhaps both. The final decision was this set up the situation of self-incrimination if he followed the law, the Constitutional conflict between differences in statuary law and the Constitution.

That Constitutional conundrum was fixed the same year of the decision and the 1934 Act was amended by Congress changing the registration requirements to apply to ONLY lawfully possessed weapons. Your claim, "Haynes will not allow criminals caught with illegal guns to be prosecuted for not registering those guns" is false, wrong and in error, holding no truth whatsoever! Therefore, your Amendment XIV claim is equally as the Haynes sophistry as you have fouled its anchor in the law.

You think you are clever because you show that a criminal arrested with an illegal gun will still be arrested for the illegal gun......and that isn't the point.

That makes absolutely no sense to a person from this planet and era, but you're correct that that isn't the point...and a dead clock is right 14 times per week.

As Haynes states and you actually show, they will not be charged for not registering their illegal guns, that would violate their 5th Amendment Right against self incrimination.

Your assertions are wrong, in error and untrue! There is no legal basis for any person in unlawful possession of a firearm to consider registration of the weapon nor has there been for the last 50 years since the 1934 Act was amended in 1968! You're tilting at windmills!

Law abiding gun owners, who can legally possess the gun, will be arrested, charged and convicted if they do not register their legal gun.

Registration of ALL legal firearms is now mandatory you claim? Even if that bloated exaggeration were true, so what? If you weren't law abiding that would be a concern for those who are so concerned about access to weaponry.

That is the issue. Registration targets law abiding gun owners....so again, it does not help stop or solve crimes.

Tissue?

And only an individual of the left would think what you just posted makes sense.... the criminals can't be charged if he doesn't register an illegal gun..... the law abiding gun owner who has committed no crime, can be charged and convicted if they don't register their gun.......

that makes all the sense in the world to you....

 

[Toronado3800]

Your post #13:
Your are in gross error, which is beyond a simple mistake. Further, neither the source I provided or my purpose are in error or a lie, so remember the forum in which you are posting.

The "definition" of a mass shooting is merely relative to the metrics employed to establish the boundaries of that definition. From my experience dealing with you on this topic, your penchant to minimize the number of mass shootings you LOOK for the more restrictive to keep the number of incidence low. In your case, it was the Mother Jones article that had a minimum of 3 dead ONLY per incident. In my case, I wanted to display the TRUE impact to ALL of the victims of a particular instance of a mass shooting in every incident by.

A shooting from your list; Yountville, CA - 3/9/2018 - 3 killed, 0 wounded = a mass shooting by your Mother Jones metric.

A shooting from my list; Benton, KY - 1/23/2018 - 2 killed, 14 wounded = NOT a mass shooting by your Mother Jones metric and so did not appear on the Mother Jones listing, thereby shortening it.

With these two examples in contrast, it is clear to see that no measure of the human impact is considered. In the first case deemed a 'mass shooting' to artificially classify the crime, only the lives of the three victims and their families are negatively impacted. In the second case NOT deemed a 'mass shooting' by the criteria used to artificially classify the crime, more than 5 times as many lives were negatively impacted. I'm sure that most reasonable persons would consider both incidents noted above as mass shootings given such devastation to so many people's lives. If you don't, then God bless your forever damned soul!

Now to discuss what you claimed was the, "...actual definition of what a mass public shooting...."

There was no "actual definition" in the Mother Jones article as you claim again in error! Linked within the article is the criteria they used to compile their very abbreviated list of the actual human cost for their analysis. There is nothing at all "official" about their metrics included about them, which lays your assertion low as being FALSE! Here is Mother Jones' criteria with the link:
It should be obvious that is an ad hoc list of specifics derived for their own purposes at Mother Jones and NOT an "official" or "actual" definition beyond the magazine's purpose for creating it, your exaggeration notwithstanding.

Your post #14:
Claiming, "Gun registration does not solve gun crimes, it does not prevent gun crimes..." as a rule or constant cannot be held as a truth or fact in all cases. For instance, a discarded firearm could come into the possession of authorities, traced to the owner and a crime solved based on a very wide number of circumstances. The very act of registering a gun has the effect of eliminating certain individuals from getting a gun registered and eliminating the gun they are trying to purchase from the possibility of being used in a felonious manner.

Because there exists possible scenarios that your assertion quoted above would be false, it is only credible in some situations! And you go on to claim, "So what you believe is often contradicted by truth and facts...as well as reality."

Because your first statement quoted above re: gun registration and criminality cannot be shown to be true in all cases relative to you false conclusion, its has absolutely nothing to do with what I believe, but what the LOGICAL reality with consideration of ALL possible variables. Its called critical thinking.

Haynes v. US was made moot the the revamping in 1968 of the 1934 National Firearms Act and changing the 1934 code loophole of it not applying to convicted felons by reason of self-incrimination. That amendment included words to the effect of limiting registration to those who could lawfully possess a firearm. You've been wrong on that point of law for 50 years now!

As far as the rest of your post #14 goes, it has nothing at all to do with the premise of your OP and should not have been included since you're derailing your own thread and beyond the envelop for this forum once again I'll stick to the predicate you laid down in the OP.

Your post #15:
Yet again, edify yourself with the facts contained in the SCOTUS decision in D.C. v. Heller, (2008), Section III, para. 1 & 2 & 3 too for good measure. Your supporting evidence is entertaining to say the least. Alas, what is done in Canada and around the world does not have a thing to do with the execution of codified US statutory law OR SCOTUS precedents. You argument was thrown out 10 feet away 84' from first base with that bunt.

Your post #16:
Perhaps the true issue is that both the person who's post you piggybacked and he usually pay no attention to what others write and have issues with comprehension of what you do actually read! And I note yet again that this post of yours also has nothing to do with to the predicate you laid down in the OP.

The very act of registering a gun has the effect of eliminating certain individuals from getting a gun registered and eliminating the gun they are trying to purchase from the possibility of being used in a felonious manner.

And this has no bearing on truth, facts or reality. A gun used for crime has an average life on the street of about 11 years....it is traded and sold constantly among criminals so knowing who the original owner is has no merit for solving the murder of a gang member, often in another city.

Here.....try to understand that registering guns is not about stopping or solving crime, the only reason anti gun extremists want gun registration is to be able to take them from their owners at a later date...sometimes decades in the future when they finally get the political power to do it...just like in Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, New York, California....

In this report.....if you know who registered the gun, it makes no difference.... the criminal end users aren't the original criminals who got the gun illegally first, not even the 2nd, 3rd or 4th....and again...

Criminals do not have to register their illegal guns........and won't be punished for not registering their illegal guns...making gun registration stupid and pointless.....except if you want to ban guns.

One illegal gun. 12 weeks. A dozen criminal acts. The rapid cycle of gun violence.

The Glock 17 rested in a display case in a gun shop in a Virginia strip mall.

Black. Easy to shoot, easy to handle. A used 9mm. For $325 in cash, it was sold to a man who swore in writing on a federal form that the gun was for him.

It wasn’t.

Within days he’d pass the semiautomatic to a friend who had driven him to the store. That friend passed it to others.
-------

It changed hands at a rapid pace and traveled across state lines — stashed in houses, a glove compartment and a flower pot before being tossed under a car in a panicked sprint from police.

The Glock was shared in just three months by the two men who started its trafficking at the strip mall and at least five more people who knew how to get to the gun when they needed it and how to pass it off when they didn’t.

The speed at which guns move from sale to use in a crime is breathtaking, and the Glock’s story demonstrates why law enforcement officials say they often are playing catch-up to the firearms in urban areas. And as the Trump administration and others draw attention to violence in cities, big city mayors and police chiefs point to the easy availability of illegal guns as a driving factor.

You can't use the argument that straw man purchases are illegal already so we don't need serial number regulations and the point that criminals don't have to register illegal guns.

Bob buys a pistol legally.

Bob sells it to felon hunting buddy Jim who can't legally own a gun but has been hunting with Bob since they were in the fraternity together.

Jim trades it to a Tim for crack.

Tim keeps it around until its needed.

Tim's henchman Chris gets arrested for killing someone.

If there is a great way already to trace that gun back to Bob besides drugging and torturing Chris, Tim and Jim or offering them time off their jail sentences I'm all ears.

No... I didn't sell the gun to bob, I lost it. It was stolen..... and because of that, unless the straw buyer is doing it in large numbers, they don't prosecute them..... and since most straw buyers are wifes, girlfriends and mothers...... prosecutors don't want to take those cases to court where the baby momma says.... he said he would beat the crap out of me if I didn't buy him the gun.....

Current police techniques are all we need to arrest gun criminals....


That is how it is done now.....and it works.... but that isn't what you guys want. You guys want to make it more expensive, more time consuming and legally dangerous to sell a gun to someone, making it less likely that people will sell their private guns.


And, of course, the real reason.... you want to know who has the gun so that when you get the power, you can collect them when you ban them.

You have no argument.

I might be naive in the motivations of others who want to register guns. Mostly I want to send that wife, girlfriend, mother or friend who "lost" their gun to jail. Sympathy is not my problem.

You buy that gun, you are responsible for it just like that car in the deadly rental car or van argument you posted a few months back. I buy a car which can kill a dozen ppl just like my shotgun and I have to register the car but not the shotgun? If we are going "use your pistol to overthrow the government far fetched", my car is as or more deadly to an Abrams than my shotgun.

Now if you are softer on crime than me that is a thing. If you want to go vote soft judges or soft prosecutors out I'm all for that. Its easy enough to fire up a Joomla powered 2006 technology website that works perfectly fine on every device to keep track of who is soft on crime.

You do realize the criminals do not have to register their illegal guns? Right? Haynes v United States makes it clear that that would violate their 5th Amendment Right against self incrimination....so therefore, under the 14th Amendment equal protection clause, requiring law abiding people to register their guns is a violation of the Constitution.

Then, cars are not a Constitutionally protected item...guns are. And socialist governments did not first confiscate cars before they committed mass murder, genocide and ethnic cleansing against people...... they confiscated the guns, using gun registration lists.

This is the truth about straw buyers that your example didn't show, since you aren't interested in the actual truth...

Straw Purchasing Guns: US Needs to Take It Seriously | [site:name] | National Review


I visited Chicago a few years back to write about the city’s gang-driven murder problem, and a retired police official told me that the nature of the people making straw purchases — young relatives, girlfriends who may or may not have been facing the threat of physical violence, grandmothers, etc. — made prosecuting those cases unattractive.


In most of those cases, the authorities emphatically should put the straw purchasers in prison for as long as possible. Throw a few gangsters’ grandmothers behind bars for 20 years and see if that gets anybody’s attention. In the case of the young women suborned into breaking the law, that should be just another charge to put on the main offender.

Prosecute grandma's who straw purchase guns. I have no problem with this I will say again.

This seems like a legal word game an ex girlfriend I had would play with ILLEGAL and not having to register. A bad court decision and a word game aside, I have to register my illegal car or else it is ILLEGAL. I have to register my ILLEGAL gun or else it is ILLEGAL. You used the word ILLEGAL yourself in reference to the gun. Not registering it still leaves it ILLEGAL.

Oh, and I was just using one of your posts about the cars and the guns, not the constitution. But yeah, my car is more effective against that commie tank than your 1911. We better start the fight to unregister cars if this is still a concern. Join me next in my fight against cell phone tracking. \

Funny thought: We could probably get some work done together if we just fight for personal freedoms. Can I get your support on a bill preventing cell phone tracking by google / att whoever? This all just gets turned over to the government on an anti-terroriest / pro-big government whim.

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Haynes v United States makes it clear that that would violate their 5th Amendment Right against self incrimination....so therefore, under the 14th Amendment equal protection clause, requiring law abiding people to register their guns is a violation of the Constitution.

The stupid aspect of gun registration is that the criminal with the actual, illegal gun, will not be prosecuted for not registering the gun... he could commit rape, robbery and murder with the gun and get charged for those.... but he can't be charged for not registering the gun.

He can't be charged for not registering that firearm because he is NOW BARRED from doing such, which was NOT the case when Haynes was arrested and later heard by SCOTUS charged under the National Firearms Act(1934). The law was changed and amended in 1968, so....

Cite the statute in the US Code disallowing convicted felons from registering ANY/ALL of their unlawfully possessed firearms. Can't find it...well let me help you;

18 U.S. Code § 922
(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—

(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) is a fugitive from justice;
(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien—

(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B)except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));

(6) who [2] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
(8)is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that—

(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and
(B)
(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or

(9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

Based on that portion of the statute above, a convicted felon in physical possession of a firearm is disallowed the registration of their unlawful firearm. Further, those with mental defects, unlawful aliens, stalkers, those with dishonorable discharges from the military, wife beaters, et al, are in the same boat as the convicted felons.

So following your canted logic, given a convicted felon is barred by law or 'not required' to register his firearm, he is therefore exempted by the existing statute and he can pack lawfully negating the statutory requirements of registration along with the others in possession of a firearm disallowed registration. And this because Hayes got caught up by a flaw in a poorly written passage of the original National Firearm Act of 1934?

No Way, Larry! The decision in Hayes v. U.S. (1968) prompted the amendment to that portion of the 1934 Act to EXCLUDE specific undesirable people from obtaining firearms. That is what made Haynes irrelevant and moot for the last 50 years and 2 months regarding the existing Act as codified today!

Haynes v United States makes it clear that that would violate their 5th Amendment Right against self incrimination....so therefore, under the 14th Amendment equal protection clause, requiring law abiding people to register their guns is a violation of the Constitution.

Your assertions that Amendments V and XIV allow what you claim are abject absurdities. The flaw in the statute was corrected, so there has been no potential conflict with Amendment V in over 50 years. Given that is true, whether you refuse to accept the truth or not, there are no grounds for the blatantly false assertion of any conflict with Amendment XIV inanely claim. You could only be more in error if you had help from other in your willfully distortion of the truth. Ya really should stay away from those gun nutter conspiracy sites!

 

[2aguy]

Haynes v United States makes it clear that that would violate their 5th Amendment Right against self incrimination....so therefore, under the 14th Amendment equal protection clause, requiring law abiding people to register their guns is a violation of the Constitution.

The stupid aspect of gun registration is that the criminal with the actual, illegal gun, will not be prosecuted for not registering the gun... he could commit rape, robbery and murder with the gun and get charged for those.... but he can't be charged for not registering the gun.

He can't be charged for not registering that firearm because he is NOW BARRED from doing such, which was NOT the case when Haynes was arrested and later heard by SCOTUS charged under the National Firearms Act(1934). The law was changed and amended in 1968, so....

Cite the statute in the US Code disallowing convicted felons from registering ANY/ALL of their unlawfully possessed firearms. Can't find it...well let me help you;

18 U.S. Code § 922
(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—

(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) is a fugitive from justice;
(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien—

(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B)except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));

(6) who [2] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
(8)is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that—

(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and
(B)
(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or

(9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

Based on that portion of the statute above, a convicted felon in physical possession of a firearm is disallowed the registration of their unlawful firearm. Further, those with mental defects, unlawful aliens, stalkers, those with dishonorable discharges from the military, wife beaters, et al, are in the same boat as the convicted felons.

So following your canted logic, given a convicted felon is barred by law or 'not required' to register his firearm, he is therefore exempted by the existing statute and he can pack lawfully negating the statutory requirements of registration along with the others in possession of a firearm disallowed registration. And this because Hayes got caught up by a flaw in a poorly written passage of the original National Firearm Act of 1934?

No Way, Larry! The decision in Hayes v. U.S. (1968) prompted the amendment to that portion of the 1934 Act to EXCLUDE specific undesirable people from obtaining firearms. That is what made Haynes irrelevant and moot for the last 50 years and 2 months regarding the existing Act as codified today!

Haynes v United States makes it clear that that would violate their 5th Amendment Right against self incrimination....so therefore, under the 14th Amendment equal protection clause, requiring law abiding people to register their guns is a violation of the Constitution.

Your assertions that Amendments V and XIV allow what you claim are abject absurdities. The flaw in the statute was corrected, so there has been no potential conflict with Amendment V in over 50 years. Given that is true, whether you refuse to accept the truth or not, there are no grounds for the blatantly false assertion of any conflict with Amendment XIV inanely claim. You could only be more in error if you had help from other in your willfully distortion of the truth. Ya really should stay away from those gun nutter conspiracy sites!

Again..... a criminal can't be charged for not registering an illegal gun. A law abiding citizen would be arrested, charged and face penalties for not registering their legal gun.

See how easy that is ...... Brevity is the Soul of Wit.

 

[rightwinger]

Registering guns is necessary for maintaining a well regulated militia

 

[ThoughtCrimes]

Haynes v United States makes it clear that that would violate their 5th Amendment Right against self incrimination....so therefore, under the 14th Amendment equal protection clause, requiring law abiding people to register their guns is a violation of the Constitution.

The stupid aspect of gun registration is that the criminal with the actual, illegal gun, will not be prosecuted for not registering the gun... he could commit rape, robbery and murder with the gun and get charged for those.... but he can't be charged for not registering the gun.

He can't be charged for not registering that firearm because he is NOW BARRED from doing such, which was NOT the case when Haynes was arrested and later heard by SCOTUS charged under the National Firearms Act(1934). The law was changed and amended in 1968, so....

Cite the statute in the US Code disallowing convicted felons from registering ANY/ALL of their unlawfully possessed firearms. Can't find it...well let me help you;

18 U.S. Code § 922
(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that such person—

(1) is under indictment for, or has been convicted in any court of, a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year;
(2) is a fugitive from justice;
(3) is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance (as defined in section 102 of the Controlled Substances Act (21 U.S.C. 802));
(4) has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;
(5) who, being an alien—

(A) is illegally or unlawfully in the United States; or
(B)except as provided in subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)));

(6) who [2] has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions;
(7) who, having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced his citizenship;
(8)is subject to a court order that restrains such person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner of such person or child of such intimate partner or person, or engaging in other conduct that would place an intimate partner in reasonable fear of bodily injury to the partner or child, except that this paragraph shall only apply to a court order that—

(A) was issued after a hearing of which such person received actual notice, and at which such person had the opportunity to participate; and
(B)
(i) includes a finding that such person represents a credible threat to the physical safety of such intimate partner or child; or
(ii) by its terms explicitly prohibits the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against such intimate partner or child that would reasonably be expected to cause bodily injury; or

(9) has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence.

Based on that portion of the statute above, a convicted felon in physical possession of a firearm is disallowed the registration of their unlawful firearm. Further, those with mental defects, unlawful aliens, stalkers, those with dishonorable discharges from the military, wife beaters, et al, are in the same boat as the convicted felons.

So following your canted logic, given a convicted felon is barred by law or 'not required' to register his firearm, he is therefore exempted by the existing statute and he can pack lawfully negating the statutory requirements of registration along with the others in possession of a firearm disallowed registration. And this because Hayes got caught up by a flaw in a poorly written passage of the original National Firearm Act of 1934?

No Way, Larry! The decision in Hayes v. U.S. (1968) prompted the amendment to that portion of the 1934 Act to EXCLUDE specific undesirable people from obtaining firearms. That is what made Haynes irrelevant and moot for the last 50 years and 2 months regarding the existing Act as codified today!

Haynes v United States makes it clear that that would violate their 5th Amendment Right against self incrimination....so therefore, under the 14th Amendment equal protection clause, requiring law abiding people to register their guns is a violation of the Constitution.

Your assertions that Amendments V and XIV allow what you claim are abject absurdities. The flaw in the statute was corrected, so there has been no potential conflict with Amendment V in over 50 years. Given that is true, whether you refuse to accept the truth or not, there are no grounds for the blatantly false assertion of any conflict with Amendment XIV inanely claim. You could only be more in error if you had help from other in your willfully distortion of the truth. Ya really should stay away from those gun nutter conspiracy sites!

Again..... a criminal can't be charged for not registering an illegal gun. A law abiding citizen would be arrested, charged and face penalties for not registering their legal gun.

See how easy that is ...... Brevity is the Soul of Wit.

Again..... a criminal can't be charged for not registering an illegal gun. A law abiding citizen would be arrested, charged and face penalties for not registering their legal gun.

No one can be lawfully charged for a crime they didn't commit, including a convicted felon or 'criminal' as you put it...EVER! My God what is floating around in your head?

I guess you've waved the white flag given you have not responded several times to support your bogus assertions, et al, which were the main thrust of my last post;

"Haynes v United States makes it clear that that would violate their 5th Amendment Right against self incrimination....so therefore, under the 14th Amendment equal protection clause, requiring law abiding people to register their guns is a violation of the Constitution.[Emphasis added]"
~~ CDZ - If registering guns is Okay, then why not make everyone submit DNA to the police? ~~

 

[Asclepias]

The anti gunners here on U.Smessage and in other places keep calling for gun registration....they falsely believe it will help solve crimes and keep guns out of the hands of crimnals.

If that is so important, and so much other crime actually happens over and above gun murder...why not force every American citizen to submit a DNA sample at Birth? If solving crimes is so important that we need to register all guns, making all gun owners guilty until proven innocent, where is the argument against DNA samples on all of us? Considering how many crimes now involve DNA at the scene of the crime...why not?

HIPAA. I dont care if you have my name and address but I dont want you having my health information. Also I dont want you planting DNA evidence.

 

[Asclepias]

The anti gunners here on U.Smessage and in other places keep calling for gun registration....they falsely believe it will help solve crimes and keep guns out of the hands of crimnals.

If that is so important, and so much other crime actually happens over and above gun murder...why not force every American citizen to submit a DNA sample at Birth? If solving crimes is so important that we need to register all guns, making all gun owners guilty until proven innocent, where is the argument against DNA samples on all of us? Considering how many crimes now involve DNA at the scene of the crime...why not?

This is not a bad idea since convicted felons are required to submit. I would give up my DNA as long as it was not available to the healthcare fat cats or used for research.

No way in hell I would trust the cops with my DNA.

 

[Crixus]

To answer the question in the title, I'll ask another question to ponder along with yours.

How many people can be put to death with a load from a gun and how many can be put to death with a load of DNA from a rim of a coffee cup?

You're putting forth just another absurd false equivalency! And don't even claim I'm for another such absurd claim because I'm not in favor of blanket gun confiscation! Scalia got it right in Heller! I suggest you try memorizing the first two paragraphs of Section III of the decision which is rock solid precedent and sound law today!

Well, if the coffee cup turned up at a murder scene I’m thinking a fella could have you killed. DNA can be planted just like any other type of evidence. I mean, I could choke out a hooker and lay one of your hairs on the corps and you are pretty much had.

 

[Crixus]

The anti gunners here on U.Smessage and in other places keep calling for gun registration....they falsely believe it will help solve crimes and keep guns out of the hands of crimnals.

If that is so important, and so much other crime actually happens over and above gun murder...why not force every American citizen to submit a DNA sample at Birth? If solving crimes is so important that we need to register all guns, making all gun owners guilty until proven innocent, where is the argument against DNA samples on all of us? Considering how many crimes now involve DNA at the scene of the crime...why not?

This is not a bad idea since convicted felons are required to submit. I would give up my DNA as long as it was not available to the healthcare fat cats or used for research.

No way in hell I would trust the cops with my DNA.

They probably already have it.