Talk:Haynes v. United States

Registration and 5th amendment
Starting discussion here about some concerns over the extent to which this decision bears on registration schemes more broadly. Shadowjams (talk) 09:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I provided a citation. What more would you like? Hoplophile (talk) 09:33, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * My concerns with the edit I removed is from a Wiki perspective, that there's no third party source reliably indicating that interpretation's correct. From a legal perspective, I am extremely skeptical of what is otherwise a sweeping interpretation of what is generally understood as a tax case from the Warren court. Much has changed from the title 26 (tax code) based scheme discussed then, not to mention 5th amendment jurisprudence. The fact that this discussion has to even reference those other areas of law demonstrates how essential it is that third-party reliable sources are used to support a rather exceptional claim. Shadowjams (talk) 09:36, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I provided a reliable third-party source. It was from the site of Alan Korwin, author of several best-selling books on gun laws, and a recognized expert on same. Hoplophile (talk) 09:44, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Leaving aside the question of whether or not that source meets WP:RS, as it's a letter to the editor, in it itself it states "Congress rewrote that law after Haynes...and along with other clever changes this overcame the 5th Amendment problem." That, on top of my understanding of that opinion, I don't think the statement is accurate. Shadowjams (talk) 09:51, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * It's a letter to the editor from Alan Korwin on his website, who I have already informed you is the author of several best-selling books on gun laws, and a recognized expert on same. Furthermore, if you'll pay attention closely, you'll read that Congress "overcame" Haynes by simply repealing the requirement that felons register their guns. That's not really "overcoming" it, is it?. Hoplophile (talk) 09:58, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * The statement was "the decision effectively exempts felons...from any gun registration scheme" which appears to be patently untrue. Future regimes may well require registration, and there are easy ways to write a law to avoid the 5th amendment issues. Moreover, felons are [still] (as they were in '68) prohibited from possessing firearms, and all licensed dealers remain required to register weapons and report on those. I'd much rather the article quote from the opinion with some perspective than have nothing, but the assertion that any felon registration scheme has 5th amendment concerns is questionable. Perhaps there's some alternative wording we can agree upon, but what SaltyBoar removed, and then I removed again, appears to me to be incorrect. Shadowjams (talk) 10:08, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Fair point. How about if we say that the decision effectively exempts felons from being compelled to register their guns, instead of saying that it exempts them from any gun registration scheme? Hoplophile (talk) 10:13, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * I would be good with that. Ideally we could draw on the opinion's language. Perhaps later in the week I can check on westlaw and see about any subsequent history regarding the opinion. If you want to add in something specific though as you said, I'd be fine with that. I may update it with whatever I find later in the week. As I'm sure you understand, nothing about what I'm saying should reflect on what I think should be the case, in regards to both the 5th amendment issue as well as the gun rights issue. I just am concerned about how accurately the issue's discussed. Shadowjams (talk) 10:17, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * No, ideally the article would not draw on the opinion's language because that is against WP:NOR policy. Ideally the article would draw on significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.  When I look, I don't much coverage of that type.  I don't even see much coverage by the gun blogs.   SaltyBoatr (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
 * Ideally it would quote that language, for that statement, was my intended meaning. But yes, it would be original research to draw that conclusion from the opinion itself, but it's not OR to quote from it for its basic propositions. Shadowjams (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

"often cited"?
Looking around this law does actually not appear to be "often cited". Cite secondary sources that say this law is often cited. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:41, 26 April 2010 (UTC)