National Registration again!!

[oneshooter]

Did Attorney General Eric Holder recently “spill the beans” on the Obama administration’s desires to implement some kind of national gun registration scheme?
Holder, a perennial anti-gunner who was involved with the Clinton administration’s anti-gun schemes, testified before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Nov. 18 and a transcript of his remarks that were not part of his prepared statement is revealing. It is so revealing, in fact, that the Law Enforcement Alliance of America issued a press statement that Holder had revealed “a stunningly broad and aggressive anti-gun agenda.”
I know LEAA’s Ted Deeds, and he is not someone to go off half-cocked with “Chicken Little” declarations about gun grabs.


Here’s what Holder said during a Q&A with anti-gun New York Sen. Charles Schumer: “The position of the Administration is that there should be a basis for law enforcement to share information about gun purchases. Fully respect the Second Amendment, fully respect the Heller decision. It does not seem to us that this is inconsistent to allow law enforcement agencies to share that kind of information, for that information to be retained and then to be shared by law enforcement.”

Full story Here: http://www.examiner.com/x-4525-Seattle-Gun-Rights-Examiner~y2009m11d24-Has-Holder-spilled-beans-on-Obama-gun-registration-plan

Both Shumer and Fienstien are in agreement, scary stuff?

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[eqfan592]

1. Where's the evidence that such a system would lower the crime rate?

Does any such evidence even exist? Sorry, but this is the same sort of crap that we got under the Bush administration, it's just directed at a different constitutional right.

[TheWraith]

2. Canada tried it, and it failed so badly that they just repealed it. nt

[AtheistCrusader]

5. It's painfully obvious it would cut down on straw purchases.

Two separate purchases tied back from a criminal to the original 'lawful' purchaser, and the 'oh I lost it in a tragic canoeing accident' excuse will wear thin.

As for other types of crime, I agree with you, it will have little to no impact.

[eqfan592]

8. Aren't the other types of crimes the crimes we should be targeting?

And if this will do little to nothing to stop those crimes, what exactly is the point then? The only effect this will have is to create a national gun registry for the government and to force the black market to make an adjustment around it. And frankly, that's simply not a good enough trade off in my opinion.

[AtheistCrusader]

10. Straw purchases are the biggest controllable way ineligable people get their hands on guns.

Even the punks that sell guns out of the trunk of a car, to whomever, got those guns somewhere.

Two sources: Theft, and straw purchases.

The latter we can do something meaningful about with working registration.

[eqfan592]

17. But where is the PROOF that registration actually does an effective job of lowering crime??

Even if it curtails straw purchases, that does NOT equate to a reduction of crime! You've said as much yourself. So really, what's the point? Do you really think the black market wont be able to adjust and either find a new source, or find ways around the registration so that they can still rely on straw purchases (such as removing serial numbers from firearms)? This just stinks of "feel good" legislation that will have little to no impact on crime and piss off a large portion of gun owning Americans who want NOTHING to do with any sort of registration program, thus expending our political capital for a program with little chance of success.

[AtheistCrusader]

19. Forensics

can figure out serial numbers that have even been ground off.

Curtailing straw purchases IS curtailing CRIME.


This would be a lot more useful than any other so-called 'feel good' legislation that has been passed around firearms in the last 20 years. It would actually directly address criminal activity.

[eqfan592]

23. Ok, let me rephrase then.

What will this do to impact the VIOLENT CRIME rate. Also, please provide an example of forensics figuring out ground out serial numbers that have been ground off. Also provide where it is stated that there is no way around these systems.

This is a very big privacy issue here. Many are simply NOT comfortable with the federal government maintaining any sort of database of private firearm ownership, because such databases can easily be abused should the political tides turn. You must be able to justify the value of any such system. Even if it would totally eliminate straw purchases (which it wouldn't) it isn't like the black market wouldn't find another way around it.

The key is eliminating the DEMAND for illegal firearms.

[AtheistCrusader]

26. You can never eliminate the demand.

You can choke off the source. You can reduce the demand, but not eliminate it.

There is no single solution to the problem of criminals getting guns. You cant just say 'oh that won't stop it all' and fairly dismiss the idea.


And the serial number thing isn't widely advertised, I don't think, but it's done all the time. Even in car theft/chop shop rings, where serial numbers are ground off engine blocks. They can raise the letters again, if not too much material has been removed. And I don't mean some of the letters on the surface remain, I mean the structure of the metal below where the serial number was, when it was ground down even to a mirror finish.

You see, you can only grind so much material off a firearm, before it's junk. Especially where most manufacturers place the serial numbers. Like, on the barrel.

[eqfan592]

30. You can't choke off the source though.

That's the point. Not without taking extreme steps and infringing of a variety of civil liberties. Hell, look at how "great" a job we'v done choking off the supply of drugs in our nation.

I fully understand that there is no single solution to the problem. What I'm saying is that this "solution" barely qualifies as one because of the extremely low probability of it's success in reducing the violent crime rate. And this comes at the cost of privacy for the vast majority of Americans who do not break the law.

We'd be much better of targeting the causes of crime, which WILL reduce demand as well as reduce the crime rate on a whole.

[GreenStormCloud]

45. The stamping process compresses the metal under the numbers.

Even when ground smooth, chemical means can still make the numbers readable. Too much grinding usually weakens the gun in critical areas.

However, I am still against registration. Guns can be smuggled, just like drugs and people are today.

[slackmaster]

40. The problem with your theory is that there are hundreds of millions of unregistered firearms around

There will be a substantial black market for hundreds of years even if mandatory registration is enacted.

[Euromutt]

53. Would it really?

According to ATF trace data, 22% of retailed handguns recovered in relation to crimes in 1999, and 20% of those similarly recovered in 2000 had been purchased in multiple purchases, and duly reported as such to the ATF. This indicates that this particular method of de facto registration has failed to deter straw purchases, which in turn led to the adoption in various states of "one handgun a month" laws. Those don't appear to have had much effect either.

Not that that's exactly surprising; in at least two of those states--California and New Jersey--handguns are already had legal requirements pertaining to handguns that amount to de facto registration. How is a "one handgun a month" law going to achieve what registration already failed to? Paradoxically, how is it even possible to enforce a "one handgun a month" law before the purchase is made, except by having a system of registration? You can't have "one gun a month" without registration, but if you already have registration, what additional benefit can "one gun a month" have?

The main snag in all these schemes is that you can build all the databases you want, but if you don't have the manpower to sift through, identify suspicious (or obviously illegal) activity, and follow up on it, it's going to have little to no effect. Some straw purchasers keep buying handguns in "multiple purchases" because the ATF doesn't have the personnel to look into every sale. And that, I would suggest, is why all these schemes have thus far failed to yield significant results.

[AtheistCrusader]

3. Registration does not scare me.

Registration legislation crafted by the ban crowd does scare me.

Seriously, we need to get in front of this and come up with something equitable, and ironclad, or people with an agenda we don't like will do it for us, and we're going to hate the results.

[PavePusher]

4. Registration does not scare me.

Because I will not comply with it.

[AtheistCrusader]

7. If it becomes law, I will.

I'd rather it became law with language I can support. Meaning, I don't want the likes of Schumer crafting it.

[eqfan592]

9. Could you give an example of a registration program....

...that you would find acceptable? I'm not trying to be snarky here, because I think you make a valid point. If we COULD craft a registration program that would also address the privacy concerns of many, we'd be ahead of the curve.

[metalbot]

15. Registration at some level exists

Right now, firearm purchase records are 100% open to law enforcement if they are investigating a specific crime related to a weapon that was purchased at an FFL. In that sense, some level of registration already exists. Records kept by an FFL are subject to audit by BATFE already to ensure accuracy, and failure to maintain accurate records has led to the revocation of many firearms licenses.

If law enforcement can't tie a particular gun to an investigation, they aren't allowed to access the purchase records associated with that weapon.

That compromise seems acceptable to me.

[eqfan592]

18. I have no problem with the existing system.

We're talking about a federal gun database system of some sort, which does not yet exist.

[AtheistCrusader]

20. That existing registration is all-but useless for anything EXCEPT your worst-case scenario.

Without a federal database, there can be no broad searches for 'unusual' buying activity. If a straw purchaser only buys a few guns here or there, from different FFL's, no single trace of a single firearm recovered from the commission of a crime will link the original buyer to anything suspicious, even if that original buyer has flipped thousands of firearms to criminals.

[eqfan592]

24. And that's exactly how it should be.

Like it or not, the trade off of living in a free society is that law enforcement officials have a more difficult job. Your arguments remind me of the arguments that were made for wireless wiretapping.

Proof would have to be provided that this is the only or best way of putting a stopper to a significant amount of violent crime. Without such proof, then this is a waste of time and political capital that would be better spent in fighting the true causes of crime, which would inherently reduce the demand for illegal firearms in the first place.

[AtheistCrusader]

22. Multiple pieces are required.

First off, we need repuidation of the Hughes Amendment, it's repeal either by legislation, or by the SC and solid case law citing it as flat-out unconstitutional. Kill it dead, and put a stake through it. That solves the 'closing of a registry' as an under-the-table ban problem.

Require safe storage at a local Police Department for any firearms in the possession of anyone charged under the Lautenberg amendment. Got a restraining order? Turn in XYZ weapons, until cleared, or another family member takes possession. No liquidation of the weapons by the police without renumeration to the individual charged. Penalties to the police department for damaged/lost/sold weapons, payable to the defendent. Immediately return all weapons if the defendent is cleared.

We should be working on those two items right now anyway.

Next up, we craft the registration process, a process which will and must take years. A permanent extension for grandfathered, pre-registration firearms, because shit will be found in gran-dads closet for probably a hundred years or more. That solves the end-run ban and confiscation that happened in California, with the extension of the Assault Weapon registry, then reversal of the extension. Maybe tie some trivial fine for un-registered weapons, like 25$ or something, to motivate. Make the registration free to the individual with the firearms. The application should be simple.

And the lynch pin: No ex-post-facto bans on firearms, ever. Period. Make it a constitutional amendment if necessary.

[PavePusher]

27. And your propsal to guarantee this will never be abused...? n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

31. Legislation.

Find loopholes, plug them. Then incorporate the 2nd, making it damn near impossible. Technically we are at risk already, from potential repeal of the 2nd. We can make it at least that hard for them.

[PavePusher]

47. Please forgive me if I don't put much faith in that answer.

I can not recall any power delegated to a government that was never expanded past original intent.

[PavePusher]

12. If they require registration of my Second Amendment items...

They had damnded well better include registration for the materials associated with the rest of my Rights. It will save time and energy when I tell them to shove it.

What "language" would let you support such a thing?

Do you want to go down that road? Such a requirement may not be the spark for the next Civil War, but I can guarantee that it is a giant leap in that direction.

How much Government intrusion into your life are you willing to put up with? What are the conditions that would cause you to draw a line in the sand? How long do we let the Constitution be sausaged?

I personally think it was a tradgedy that President Obama did not order the suspension of all Patriot Act provisions during his first five minutes in office.

Silly me, I think one can be a flaming liberal and a rabid supporter of the Constitution at the same time. Crazy, I know.

[AtheistCrusader]

21. It's already done.

Want to run a large protest? Forget that freedom of assembly, line to apply for a permit is on the left.

And of course, that makes sense, so the city can mitigate potential dangers that such a protest might bring, like overwhelming available sanitation, traffic accidents, or blocking EMS. Get a permit, the police can block intersections like they do for Critical Mass, allowing for a SAFE protest, or they can add Porta-potties around the protest area so we don't have dangerous sanitation issues, or they can route EMS around planned protest routes, so people don't die waiting for an ambulance stuck in traffic because of the protest.

We already have many restrictions to our rights all across the board. Including forms of registration that impinge on the First Amendment, and for practical, reasonable reasons.

I see no unconstitutionality to registration. None at all. Closing registries, like the Hughes amendment, banning specific firearms based on features, like the 1994 AWB, THOSE are infringments. Registering a weapon to an individual is not. It serves practical, reasonable purposes.

[eqfan592]

25. Apples to oranges.

There's nothing stopping an individual from walking around with a sign saying what they want. No permit required. And for a large group, yes you must get a permit for safety reasons, but these permits are usually granted because of the potential legal repercussion that a city would face should they deny one without a significant ammount of probable cause. Also, not all protests require permits, depending on where it's being held and the number of people. Also, given that such a protest is an inherently public event, there simply isn't the same privacy concern involved as there is with firearms registration.

[AtheistCrusader]

29. What.

The point was, we accept apparent infringments on other rights already, nevermind that registration isn't actually an infringment of the 2nd Amendment.

"There's nothing stopping an individual from walking around with a sign saying what they want."

Loitering ordinances. Plus, we just had 8 years of 'free speech zones' so uh... yeah.

"but these permits are usually granted"

Usually. That's a sly way of saying sometimes they are DENIED.

"there simply isn't the same privacy concern involved as there is with firearms registration."

You would be ok with the police moving through a protest and checking everyone's id's? Without that, even with current facial recognition technology, you are largely anonymous at a protest. You could also legally wear a mask.

[eqfan592]

32. Nobody ever said it was an infringment of the 2nd Amendment.

But I would say it would be an infringement of the 9th Amendment.

EDIT: I removed the rest of my post here as I have an idea. I concede that we do accept a certain level of restriction on our rights. I don't think anybody denies that. We do the same thing now with the 2nd Amendment, even without registration.

However, this point is NOT a good argument for registration in and of itself. Simply because you CAN do something doesn't mean you SHOULD do something.

So I have a proposal. You provide historical evidence of a gun registration program that was NOT abused by the government that established it, and that was ALSO effective at reducing the violent crime rate (this is the only crime statistic that it is worth focusing on when reviewing the effectiveness of gun control legislation). If you cannot do this, then provide what you think of as a reasonable firearm registration program that also protects the privacy of private firearm owners.

[AtheistCrusader]

51. Infringement might be too strong, but

if there is a chance it may be denied, I see it as infringment. Just like a poll tax was considered an infringment on our right to elect our representatives. So I read this post as complaining about infringment

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=271927&mesg_id=271959

which, I will grant, in that context, the 2nd is plenty infringed, as are most.

The best example I can give you would be the NFA registry. Now, that registry was unfairly, unconstitutionally closed in 1986 by an up/down voice vote, and we need to fix that, but I would certainly point to the NFA registry itself as an amazingly effective preventative tool for the proliferation of select fire weapons to criminals. Such proliferation is so rare, it vanishes in the noise of statistical error margins. Most of the actual crimes that do occur with illegal select fire weapons in the US, are actual possession crimes, not violent crimes.

So, while the example is tainted with the closure of the registry, I still think it's a good example. No weapons that were registered and lawfully possessed have been confiscated as part of a broad ban. I don't even think there's any linkage that would cause confiscation under say, the lautenberg domestic violence bill.

[taurus145]

14. Amen, brother n/t

[ZombieHorde]

41. Why would you not comply with firearm registration?

What negative effect do you suspect will come from registration?

[eqfan592]

44. Registration is historically the first step towards confiscation.

Besides that, many feel it a direct violation of their privacy. One that would have no impact on the actual violent crime rate.

[AtheistCrusader]

46. When and where?

Where has registration been used to power confiscation?

[PavePusher]

48. California.

Britian. Australia. Germany.

Seriously? How long have you been here?

[AtheistCrusader]

49. Germany?

Bullshit.

I acknowledged the administrative error of the California AW registry in like.. my second post in this thread. It was not a systematic confiscation program, it was a fuckup.

Australia and Britian's bans are in no way dependent upon the registry.

[taurus145]

55. Yes. Germany. Late 1930's

UK in 1997. Non-compensated seizure and destruction of all privately owned handguns.

Ask Edward Fox. He was at several of the protests against banning handgun ownership. You won't believe it, though, because the NRA posted the video on youtube. That automatically makes it untrue for many here.

[Euromutt]

56. Germany confiscated privately owned firearms in 1919-1920

As part of the Versailles Treaty, Germany disarmed the population, as well as restricting the amount of weapons of all kinds held by the government. There was no legal private ownership of firearms from 1920 until 1928, which when the Weimar government reinstated private firearms ownership, subject to licensing and registration. Mind you, that didn't stop the fascists and communists from holding running gun battles in the street during the period that private ownership of firearms was outlawed.

The German firearms law of 1938 both relaxed and tightened the restrictions on private firearms ownership. Crudely put, it made it much easier to own guns for government employees and Nazi party members (often the same people), made it slightly easier for anyone not considered "unreliable," and made it completely illegal for Jews and other Unerwunschten ("undesirables"; or in terms more familiar to us, "those people," by which the Nazis meant gypsies, trade unionists and other left-wingers, homosexuals, overly principled Lutheran clergy, and other future concentration camp fodder).

An essay that's worth reading in the context is "The Myth of Nazi Gun Control" http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcnazimyth.html
Yes, it's on Guncite.com; I hope that carries some weight.

[taurus145]

59. You're correct

I was mistaken. I was thinking of the "hunting club" roundup.

[oneshooter]

54. I believe that NYC also had a confiscation of registered firearms. N/T

[oneshooter]

58. Found it!! New York City 1990's "assault rifles"

Even in the United States, registration has been used to outlaw and confiscate firearms. In New York City, a registration system enacted in 1967 for long guns, was used in the early 1990s to confiscate lawfully owned semiautomatic rifles and shotguns. (Same source as previous paragraph) The New York City Council banned firearms that had been classified by the city as "assault weapons." This was done despite the testimony of Police Commissioner Lee Brown that no registered "assault weapon" had been used in a violent crime in the city. The 2,340 New Yorkers who had registered their firearms were notified that these firearms had to be surrendered, rendered inoperable, or taken out of the city. (NRA/ILA Fact Sheet: Firearms Registration: New York City's Lesson)

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_registration.html

Again from guncite but still correct information.

Oneshooter
Livin in Texas

[Tejas]

6. "Bring me the 4473's." - nt

[AtheistCrusader]

11. Ah, you've noticed we already basically have registration.

Again, time we get in front of this issue, pro-actively.

[PavePusher]

13. Instant destruction of the form in front of the buyer works for me.

I'll even bring the lighter fluid and matches myself.

[one-eyed fat man]

50. not only do we have defacto registration

We have the ATF scanning all out of business dealer records into the database at Martinsburg, WV in spite of considerable Congressional legislation prohibiting it.

For over 20 years, contrary to the Intent of Congress and in violation of 18 U.S.C. 926(a), BATF has been quietly building a massive Firearms Registration System for Firearms, Firearm Owners and Firearm Transactions.

The Firearms Owners’ Protection Act, signed into law in 1986, specifically forbids registration of firearms records at 18 U.S.C. 926(a):

“No such rule or regulation prescribed after the date of the enactment of the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act may require that records required to be maintained under this chapter or any portion of the contents of such records, be recorded at or transferred to a facility owned, managed, or controlled by the United States or any State or any political subdivision thereof, nor that any system of registration of firearms, firearms owners, or firearms transactions or dispositions be established.”

When a firearms dealer, importer or manufacturer dies or otherwise goes out of business, all the Acquisition/Disposition records (the “Bound Book”) kept by the business must be delivered to the BATF Out-of-Business Center. Currently (according to the 2010 BATF Budget Submission), over 1.2 million records per month are being received by the BATF Out-Of-Business Center.

Most recently, on August 25, 2008, BATF implemented Ruling 2008-2, allowing Federal Firearms License (FFL) holders to keep the Acquisition/Disposition “Bound Book” on a computer. However, when the FFL goes out of business, he must provide a computer file (digital file) and file layout to the ATF Out-of-Business Records Center - in addition to a printout of the “bound A/D book”. Since BATF kindly allows dealers to also record antique firearms in the A/D book, these records are also being turned in to BATF.

Obviously, BATF intends to make use of those digital records. The digital file includes the Name and Address of every Buyer and every Seller for each gun, as well as the Name, Make, Model, Caliber and Serial of each firearm. In fact, each set of Out-of-Business digital records is precisely a system of registration of firearms, firearm owners and firearm transactions specifically prohibited by 18 U.S.C. 926(a).

Sure beats the hell out scanning records into microfilm, like the ATF had been doing.

[taurus145]

16. Almost good enough

Then bring me the hard drives of any and all computers used for the NICS check and give me a minute with them and a large sledgehammer.

Nothing deleted ever truly leaves a hard drive.

[spin]

34. Registration of all new firearms sold might be possible...

registration of the (at least) 200 million existing firearms is a fool's mission.

But any attempt to register either newly manufactured firearms or existing firearms would give the Republican Party enough ammunition to gain congressional seats at the midterm elections and defeat Obama in the next Presidential election.

It's possibly as stupid an an idea as the anti-abortion agenda of the conservative Christian right.

The sad part is that in order to win the political fight to implement any form of gun registration, more important social items will have to be ignored.

And all we have to do is look at recent events in Canada. Their registration system proved to be an expensive failure with little results to show.

Good riddance to long gun registry

By PETER WORTHINGTON Sunday, November 29, 2009

Now that MPs have voted 164-137 to repeal the registry of long guns and shotguns, several realities stand out in the whole emotional question of the gun registry.

For starters, gun registration has cut down on neither crime nor gun violence -- and forget the support given the program by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. Try asking individual cops, and you get a different, non-political answer.

The idea that police rely on the registry in the detection of crime, makes no sense. When you get down to it, no one has an accurate idea of how many guns there are in Canada, or who owns them.

Officially, three million Canadians own seven million guns. (The Toronto Star's editorial board thinks two million are gun owners). Two or three million gun owners in a population of 33 million? Who is kidding whom?

In the mid-1970s, when gun registration was barely hinted at and Canada's population was under 25 million, it was estimated that seven million Canadians owned 21 million firearms. How come such a discrepancy, when our population has grown by 25% from those days?

The answer is that there are literally millions of unregistered hunting rifles and shotguns out there that Canadians haven't registered and aren't declaring -- and aren't using to commit crimes.
http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/peter_worthington/2009/11/14/11743116-sun.html

People who live in the large liberal cities that are the base of the Democrat Party have little conception of how common firearms are in other sections of the country. Some of the leaders of our party hope to gain support from these Democratic bastions by pushing "feel good" registration schemes.

Gun registration at a national level in the United States is expense, unworkable, impractical, foolish and worthless.

[jefflrrp]

28. Sorry. Most of my guns are bought privately . . .

from individuals. So no 4473s on them. And no, I would not comply with any sort of bullshit 'feelgood' registration law. Ain't going to happen.

[spin]

33. Welcome to DU (n/t)

[Katya Mullethov]

35. Fromsee files .......obtain form 4473

[eqfan592]

38. Not to ruin the mystique of your quote....

...but that's from Red Dawn, right? :P

[Katya Mullethov]

39. but of course

commrade

[Katya Mullethov]

36. As long as they judiciously

use the heat from that big pile of burning money for some type of cogeneration . Distilling yet more ethanol maybe ? I hate to see it just get burnt up for nothing .

[X_Digger]

37. Never never never.

Never- for a couple of reasons:

1) I can't see anyone crafting a registration that can't be subverted by a subsequent administration or amendment.

2) I have no faith that any registration scheme would actually have an effect on crime. Were it to actually impinge on crime gun availability, alternate avenues would pop up.

3) There's no credible reason to believe that straw purchases (the purported avenue that registration is supposed to 'fix') actually represent a large portion of 'crime guns'. 40% come from 'street / illegal market', 40% come from 'friends / family'. Only 20% came from any kind of 'retail' source.

[one-eyed fat man]

42. Here's a glaring example of what's wrong with registration.

Wheaton vs. Caldera, et al

"Can a party acquire title to stolen property sufficient to
defeat the rights of the registered owner? If so, can the same
government which mandates registration and which maintains the
central registry of such property acquire such title to stolen
property when it has actual knowledge of the registered owner?"


Short story, a legally registered 1904 Maxim gun is stolen from a New Jersey VFW Post during remodeling.

Years later, this exceedingly rare gun turns up in the museum at the West Point military Academy.

The gun is listed by serial number in the NFA registry as belonging to the Plaintiff.

The ATF argues the registry was never intended to return stolen property to its lawful owners.

The Federal Judge rules the owner of the stolen property has no standing to sue for the return of his property.

So, evidently, if the government has possession of stolen property long enough it gains title to it because it says so.

[cowcommander]

43. Yeah, because gun registration worked SO well in Britain...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGVAQOUi6ec

Registration inevitably leads to confiscation.

[Xela]

52. Works very well in Mexico too...NOT...

Sorry, couldn't help the silly sarcasm.

But seriously, do they really think the Zetas and all narcos in Mexico register their firearms?

Xela

[Euromutt]

57. Four words: Haynes versus United States

This was the case in which the Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiff could not be prosecuted for failing to register a firearm (in this case an NFA item), because he was a convicted felon, and therefore prohibited from possessing any firearm, and requiring him to register the weapon illegally in his possession would violate his Fifth Amendment freedom against self-incrimination. While the NFA of 1934 has since been amended to patch this loophole, no other registration scheme has.

So the upshot is that failure to comply with any firearm registration scheme is a punishable offense only for legal gun owners; those illegally in possession of a firearm are exempt.