Self incrimination

In addition to thinking law enforcement should be going to jail instead of Ms. Taylor I find this interesting because it seems to me there is a 5th Amendment issue here as well a 2nd Amendment issue:

Texas woman arrested in Albany for declaring a firearm to a Delta Airlines representative

Albany County Sheriff has reported the arrest of a Texas woman for Criminal Possession of a Firearm.

On Wednesday, June 15th, at approximately 11:45 AM, Deputies responded to the Delta Airlines ticket counter for a passenger declaring a firearm to a Delta Airlines representative.

Upon investigation, Deputies discovered that Natasia R. Taylor was in possession of a Walther P22, .22 caliber handgun.

Taylor does not possess a New York State Pistol Permit.

Taylor was charged with Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Fourth Degree, a Class A Misdemeanor.

Isn’t it a self incrimination issue that you are required to declare a firearm under these conditions?

Share

8 thoughts on “Self incrimination

  1. lawyer for 26 years. damn straight the 5th amendment is implicated, if law enforcement is contacted.

    but keep in mind, the 5th a is a restraint on government, and not implicated if the airline just uses the info for its own security reasons.

    the 5th a does not confer on Taylor the right to carry weapons on a flight. period.

    • Since it is a requirement of Federal law that you declare a firearm that is being shipped by common carrier, would that change anything?

  2. The argument will be that it’s the AIRLINE requiring that you declare the firearm and private companies are not bound by the Bill Of Rights thus you declare the firearm and the private company reports you to the po po who promptly arrest you.
    Neat how that works ain’t it. Expect MORE such public/private partnerships set up to destroy you and your rights.

    • Did the airlines invent that requirement? I thought it was a government mandate. That makes a big difference.
      Wasn’t there some precedent years ago that felons can’t be charged with failing to register a firearm, because of the 5th Amendment?

      • Haynes v. United States, 1968

        Miles Edward Haynes was an all around scumbag, convicted felon, and he was arrested with a sawn-off shotgun.His convictions on many, many counts stood up, but his conviction for failing to register and pay the tax for his NFA shotgun was overturned on the basis that registering the SBS would require self-incrimination, and under the 5th Amendment, one cannot be punished for not doing something that your are legally protected in not doing.

        On that basis, all kinds of laws regarding licenses, registration, permissions, approvals, certificates, every manner of bureaucracy that requires telling an authority that one possesses a firearm… cannot be applied to someone that will fail a background check. You can nail them for possessing the firearm, but you can’t get them for failing to follow the bureaucracy. Of course, you have to catch them doing it, which is identical to the problem that would exist if the laws did not exist.

        Conversely, those laws can only be applied to people that can pass a background check… which seems to be an equal protection issue to me.

        Thought exercise: Let’s suppose you know exactly what the criteria are for being a prohibited person. Furthermore, let’s suppose you recognize that there are a couple provisions that would make one a prohibited person, but they do not require a conviction. So… you know you are a prohibited person, but nobody else does, including the FBI. Therefore, you cannot be required to go through any registration process. Suppose that somehow you get caught with a gun that had not been transferred via “universal background check” provision of law, and your defense is the 5th Amendment, referencing Haynes vs US. When they ask how that is so, respond that you cannot identify which provision of law you violated, as that would be also be a 5th Amendment violation. So they know you claim to be a prohibited person, and they know they have records that discount any of the provision that require convictions, so by process of elimination, that leaves the non-conviction disqualifying factors… which they don’t have any legally sufficient proof that you violated. So, you don’t identify as a prohibited person, but you identify as a person whose 5th Amendment protections would be violated by being forced to comply with licensing, registration, etc, as a matter of equal protection with other American citizens that also do not have to comply with those same laws.

        • Ya, tried that back in the early 80’s. Said that signing statement under the penalty of perjury was a waiver of my 5th.
          Drivers license, IRS 1040, On and on. If they find you lied on the form. They use that statement in court to convict you right?
          Thus making you a witness against yourself.
          What the judge told me to get me out of his courtroom was better than what I walked in with.
          He said that a statement signed under the penalty of perjury was not a waiver of the 5th. until it went to court against you.
          Of course I wasn’t thinking fast enough to ask him if, at that point, I could have the statement stricken from evidence?
          Wouldn’t one love to claim 99 dependents on your tax form. Then have the form stricken from evidence in court? But you still complied with the filing requirement. So no problem there.
          I went down and got my driver license. But I’ll always have the precious memory of having a judge with his head down in his hands trying to cope with his dumb luck of having me in his court room.
          Especially when I started in about not paying the fees, because the government paper is debt issue. So a fee can never be truly satisfied by paper currency.
          Thus the constitutional clause, “No state shall make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debt.”
          So a state fee could not be considered a debt. Under that noted on currency. “This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private.” And the state was in violation of the constitution in it’s demand of paper currency.
          It was a good day! (For me anyway.)

          • Strike the perjury as “Fruit of the poisonous tree.”
            My question is whether this government action against Ms Taylor is an error in the application of law and can therefore be overturned and she can be returned to status quo ante, or if it is an error of fact and somehow must be accepted by the appellate courts.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.