BTW, I am not sure that an exception based on illegal immigrant status would fly based on the Equal Protection clause. That classification could very well fail even a rational basis challenge.
That is true for state level restrictions but not federal due to amendments to the NFA which made all people required to provide this information and register such weapons to the BATF.
The GCA of 1968 altered the law addressed in Haynes by
"First, the requirement for possessors of unregistered firearms to register was removed. Indeed, under the amended law, there is no mechanism for a possessor to register an unregistered NFA firearm already possessed by the person. Second, a provision was added to the law prohibiting the use of any information from an NFA application or registration as evidence against the person in a criminal proceeding with respect to a violation of law occurring prior to or concurrently with the filing of the application or registration." https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/atf-national-firearms-act-handbook-introduction/download
Thus, the Feds cannot use the lack of information aka failure to register to prove intent under the old std. in the NFA to prove intent of illegal possession of a firearm at issue in Haynes. But, they can punish anyone for giving false information and requiring all to provide such information via FFL sales is not considered a violation of the 5th.
The Supreme Court revisited the NFA after Congress amended the law via the GCA in 1968 in United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601 (1971) and held it constitutional as seen above in the current ATF manual.
It is a fine distinction but making a false statement to acquire a firearm is different than using a form 4473 as evidence to prove illegal possession of a firearm by a prohibited person. Abramski dealt with the first instance.
We should all be familiar with the A5. Then there's U.S. v. Haynes (SCOTUS, 1968), which says that you can't convict a previously-convicted felon for failing to register a handgun, because that would violate the A5. Similarly, you can't convict a previously-convicted felon for failing to fill out a 4473.
That is true for state level restrictions but not federal due to amendments to the NFA which made all people required to provide this information and register such weapons to the BATF.
The GCA of 1968 altered the law addressed in Haynes by
"First, the requirement for possessors of unregistered firearms to register was removed. Indeed, under the amended law, there is no mechanism for a possessor to register an unregistered NFA firearm already possessed by the person. Second, a provision was added to the law prohibiting the use of any information from an NFA application or registration as evidence against the person in a criminal proceeding with respect to a violation of law occurring prior to or concurrently with the filing of the application or registration." https://www.atf.gov/firearms/docs/atf-national-firearms-act-handbook-introduction/download
Thus, the Feds cannot use the lack of information aka failure to register to prove intent under the old std. in the NFA to prove intent of illegal possession of a firearm at issue in Haynes. But, they can punish anyone for giving false information and requiring all to provide such information via FFL sales is not considered a violation of the 5th.
The Supreme Court revisited the NFA after Congress amended the law via the GCA in 1968 in United States v. Freed, 401 U.S. 601 (1971) and held it constitutional as seen above in the current ATF manual.
It is a fine distinction but making a false statement to acquire a firearm is different than using a form 4473 as evidence to prove illegal possession of a firearm by a prohibited person. Abramski dealt with the first instance.