|Supreme Court in 1968|
Haynes v. United States
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.
In a 7-1 decision, the Court ruled in 1968 in favor of Haynes. Earl Warren dissented in a one sentence opinion and Thurgood Marshall did not participate in the ruling.Um, okay. Apparently the Supremes "fixed" that later on. (Sure they did.)
All I can think to say is that sometimes the interpretation of the law makes no sense. But when it does, count on someone coming along and over-complicating things. (See 2nd Amendment national "discussion". Yeah, right.)
Can't have everyone understanding the law now can we?
Then we wouldn't need lawyers.
Wait a minute...
Read me that last bit again...
Now there's a thought!