Haynes v. United States: Difference between revisions
SaltyBoatr (talk | contribs) removing per WP:NOR |
Hoplophile (talk | contribs) Undid revision 358264964 by SaltyBoatr (talk) |
||
| Line 29: | Line 29: | ||
As with many other [[Right against self-incrimination|5th amendment cases]], felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled the incriminate themselves through registration.<ref name=eande /><ref>http://www.gunlaws.com/gunreggie.htm</ref> The [[National Firearm Act]] was amended after ''Haynes'', and the new registration provision was upheld in ''[[United States v. Freed]]'', 401 U.S. 601 (1971).<ref>David Fellman, ''Defendants Rights Today'', Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 1979, page 310.</ref> |
As with many other [[Right against self-incrimination|5th amendment cases]], felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled the incriminate themselves through registration.<ref name=eande /><ref>http://www.gunlaws.com/gunreggie.htm</ref> The [[National Firearm Act]] was amended after ''Haynes'', and the new registration provision was upheld in ''[[United States v. Freed]]'', 401 U.S. 601 (1971).<ref>David Fellman, ''Defendants Rights Today'', Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 1979, page 310.</ref> |
||
Since the decision offers felons (and, by extrapolation, all other prohibited possessors) a considerable degree of immunity from gun registration, it is often cited in the American [[Gun politics in the United States|gun rights]] debate.{{cn}} |
|||
==See also== |
==See also== |
||
Revision as of 20:37, 25 April 2010
| Haynes v. United States | |
|---|---|
 | |
| Argued October 11, 1967 Decided January 29, 1968 | |
| Full case name | Miles Edward Haynes v. United States |
| Citations | 390 U.S. 85 (more) 88 S.Ct. 722; 19 L.Ed.2d 923 |
| Holding | |
| Haynes' conviction under 5851 for possession of an unregistered firearm is not properly distinguishable from a conviction under 5841 for failure to register possession of a firearm, and both offenses must be deemed subject to any constitutional deficiencies arising under the Fifth Amendment from the obligation to register. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinion | |
| Majority | Harlan |
| Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of the case. | |
Haynes v. United States, 390 U.S. 85 (1968), was a United States Supreme Court decision interpreting the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution's self-incrimination clause. Haynes extended the Fifth Amendment protections elucidated in Marchetti v. United States, 390 U.S. 39, 57 (1968).[1]
Background of the case
The National Firearms Act of 1934 required the registration of certain types of firearms. Miles Edward Haynes was a convicted felon who was charged with failing to register a firearm under the Act. Haynes argued that, because he was a convicted felon and thus prohibited from owning a firearm, requiring him to register was essentially requiring him to make an open admission to the government that he was in violation of the law, which was thus a violation of his right not to incriminate himself.
Majority opinion
In 7-1 decision, the Court ruled in favor of Haynes. Earl Warren dissented in a one sentence opinion and Thurgood Marshall did not participate in the ruling.
As with many other 5th amendment cases, felons and others prohibited from possessing firearms could not be compelled the incriminate themselves through registration.[1][2] The National Firearm Act was amended after Haynes, and the new registration provision was upheld in United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601 (1971).[3]
Since the decision offers felons (and, by extrapolation, all other prohibited possessors) a considerable degree of immunity from gun registration, it is often cited in the American gun rights debate.[citation needed]
See also
Further reading
- Opinion at findlaw
- Young, D. A. (1971). "Self-Incrimination under Haynes v. United States, as Affected by the 1968 Amendment to the National Firearms Act, and United States v. Freed". Baylor Law Review. 23: 535. ISSN 0005-7274.
{{cite journal}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters:|month=and|coauthors=(help)
References
- ^ a b William F. Funk, Richard H. Seamon, Examples & explanations series: Administrative Law, Edition 3, Aspen Publishers, 2009, page 361-62.
- ^ http://www.gunlaws.com/gunreggie.htm
- ^ David Fellman, Defendants Rights Today, Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 1979, page 310.