It’s practically a Pavlovian response at this point: every time an incident involving gun violence occurs, the resultant freak-out from the gun control advocates is always: “Somebody needs to do SOMETHING!!”

Inevitably, the discussion leads to background checks and mandatory registration. Since this blog already dissected the risible “90%” claim spouted by President Obama regarding background checks, let’s take a peek at mandatory registration, shall we?

We had this recent comment from VP Joe “Soo-per Jean-yus” Biden:

“When you go to registration, it raises all the black-helicopter-crowd notion that what this is all about is identifying who has a gun so that one day the government can get up and go to the house and arrest everyone who has a gun, and they’ll cite Nazi Germany and all that…”

Of course, we’re well aware of Joe’s idiotic prescription for home-defense…., so please consider the source.

Still, you might ask: “What IS the problem with mandating gun registration?” Well, leaving behind the black-helicopter-crowd notion, there’s another reason I’d beseech you to consider…

Have you ever heard of the Supreme Court decision: U.S. v. Haynes (1968)?

Clayton Cramer wrote an article on the subject that I read at Firearms and Liberty. He summarizes the case:

“In Haynes v. U.S. (1968), a Miles Edward Haynes appealed his conviction for unlawful possession of an unregistered short-barreled shotgun.

His argument was ingenious: since he was a convicted felon at the time he was arrested on the shotgun charge, he could not legally possess a firearm. Haynes further argued that for a convicted felon to register a gun, especially a short-barreled shotgun, was effectively an announcement to the government that he was breaking the law. If he did register it, as 26 U.S.C. sec.5841 required, he was incriminating himself; but if he did not register it, the government would punish him for possessing an unregistered firearm — a violation of 26 U.S.C. sec.5851.

Consequently, his Fifth Amendment protection against self- incrimination (“No person… shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself”) was being violated — he would be punished if he registered it, and punished if he did not register it.“

Pretty ingenious, eh? Yet surely our Court system would see through this plainly illogical argument, …wouldn’t it?

Think again.

It was a 7-1 decision, with Justice Thurgood Marshall not involved in the ruling and only Chief Justice Warren having dissented. Justice Harlan delivered the Majority Opinion, concluding his writing with:

“We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a firearm under 5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under 5851.”

May I summarize the decision in terms that I understand? Thank you, I think I will.

In other words, a convicted felon can NOT be convicted for failing to register a gun. See…. if he were to attempt to register it, it would be revealed that he was a convicted felon who was attempting to purchase/register the weapon, and would be incriminating himself…..which violates his Fifth Amendment Rights.

However, a citizen who IS legally “allowed” to own a firearm, but fails to register it according to any law that would require such, can (and almost certainly, WILL) be punished.

And there you have it: the criminal, towards whom registration laws would presumably be aimed, cannot be punished for failing to register the weapon. BUT: you, me, and all other law-abiding, tax-paying citizens, …CAN be.

So, would someone, …anyone, …kindly explain to me: WHAT is gained by requiring our firearms to be registered? There’s no need to answer, of course…

We already know: