Source: http://openjurist.org/341/f2d/85
Timestamp: 2016-02-13 00:42:20
Document Index: 558300804

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 5846', '§ 5841', '§ 5841', '§ 5851', '§ 5841', '§ 5841', '§ 2255', '§ 5841', '§ 5841']

341 F2d 85 Dugan v. United States | OpenJurist
341 F. 2d 85 - Dugan v. United States HomeFederal Reporter, Second Series 341 F.2d.
341 F2d 85 Dugan v. United States 341 F.2d 85
Bennie Lee DUGAN, Petitioner-Appellant,v.UNITED STATES of America, Respondent-Appellee.
Joseph A. Spitalli, Jerold S. Solovy, Chicago, Ill., for appellant.
Abraham A. Dash, Department of Justice, Crim. Div., Washington, D. C., Carl W. Feickert, U. S. Atty., E. St. Louis, Ill., Robert F. Quinn, Asst. U. S. Atty., Robert S. Erdahl, Atty., Department of Justice, Washington, D. C., for appellee.
(7) 26 U.S.C.A. § 5846, relating to the administration and enforcement of taxes and assessments.
If any of these applicable provisions has not been complied with, any person in possession of such a firearm must register it pursuant to § 5841. However registration under § 5841 does not merely constitute a compliance with that act, but may subject the person to prosecution under § 5851, which provides:
It is apparent that registration is required under § 5841 only where another section of the Act has not been complied with. Registration would be an admission that another section or other sections of the Act had been violated and might support a conviction by a court.
We agree with the contention of petitioner that the registration requirement of § 5841 violates the privilege against self-incrimination established by the fifth amendment to the United States constitution. Hence he was entitled in his § 2255 proceeding to have the judgment against him vacated.
In arriving at this decision we are in agreement with the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals in Russell v. United States, 306 F.2d 402 (1962).
The government argues, unconclusively we believe, that registration under § 5841 has never been used as a means of incriminating a registrant. The government further relies on its version of the history of § 5841 to refute the affirmation that registration necessarily incriminates the registrant. We cannot subscribe to this theory in view of the plain language which Congress has used.
The government further argues that a person in entirely innocent circumstances may come into possession of a firearm not previously made or transferred in compliance with the applicable provisions of the Act and his registration of a firearm so acquired would entail no incrimination. However we do not think that the fact that there might be cases where registration would not result in incrimination by the registrant is any answer to the contention that one who is required to register might thereby incriminate himself.
For these reasons we reverse the order from which this appeal was taken and we vacate the judgment of the district court convicting and sentencing petitioner.