Cite as U.S. v. Ramsey, 429 F.2d 565 (5th Cir. 1970)

          United States of America, Plaintiff-Appellee,

                               v.

          Samuel Lawrence Ramsey, Defendant-Appellant.

                            No. 29329

                        Summary Calendar.

         United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.

                         Aug. 11, 1970.

     J. Mason Davis, Birmingham, Ala. (Ct. Apptd.), for appellant.

     Melton L. Alexander, Asst. U. S. Atty., Wayman G. Sherrer, U.
S. Atty., L. Scott Atkins, Asst. U. S. Atty., Birmingham, Ala., for
appellee.

     Before BELL, AINSWORTH and GODBOLD, Circuit Judges.

     PER CURIAM:

      Samuel Lawrence Ramsey appeals from a judgment of conviction
of having violated 26 U.S.C. section 5861(c), relative to unlawful
possession of a firearm made in violation of 26 U.S.C. section
5822. He contends on appeal that the verdict was against the weight
of the evidence and that the statutory offense for which he was
tried violated his privilege against self-incrimination. We find no
merit to these contentions and affirm. [footnote 1]

     On March 27, 1968, Terry Parker was shot and wounded by the
discharge of a sawed-off shotgun. During a card game, Parker,
appellant Ramsey and another man became involved in an argument.
Sometime later in the evening, Parker's father observed appellant
with a shotgun. Minutes later he witnessed the shooting of his son
by appellant who fled the scene. A police officer, called in the
meantime to investigate the fracas, gave chase and succeeded in
retrieving a weapon thrown to the ground by the fleeting figure.
The weapon, a sawed-off shotgun made from a twelve-gauge, single
barrel Victor Ejector shotgun, was identified at trial by the
victim and his father as the gun used by Ramsey in the shooting
affray. Appellant's contention that there was insufficient proof to
show that he possessed the shotgun is not convincing in the light
of the substantial evidence adduced. Taking the view most favorable
to the Government, we sustain the verdict. Glasser v. United
States, 315 U.S. 60, 80, 62 S.Ct. 457, 469, 86 L.Ed. 680 (1942).

     The statutes involved in appellant's conviction are part of
the new Gun Control Act of 1968 (codified as 26 U.S.C. sections
5801 through 5872), as amended October 22, 1968, Pub.L. 90-618,
which amended in toto the provisions of the National Firearms Act
(codified as 26 U.S.C. sections 5801 through 5862). In Haynes v.
United States, 390 U.S. 85, 88 S.Ct. 722, 19 L.Ed.2d 923 (1968),
relied on by appellant, the defendant was convicted under former
Section 5851 of the National Firearms Act for possession of a
firearm which had not been registered as provided by Section 5851.
The current Gun Control Act places the burden of registering on the
importer, maker, dealer and transferor, not on the possessor. 26
U.S.C. sections 5802, 5841. Furthermore, under the new Act no
information (other than false information) obtained from
registration may be used directly or indirectly against the
registrant in a criminal proceeding "with respect to a violation of
law occurring prior to or concurrently with the filing of the
application or registration, or the compiling of the records
containing the information or evidence." 26 U.S.C. section 5848.
Nothing in Sections 5822 or 5861, under which appellant was
convicted, or in the other provisions of the Gun Control Act of
1968, requires appellant or a person so situated to incriminate
himself. Even under the more stringent requirements of the former
National Firearms Act, on at least two occasions, we rejected the
contention made here that under the theory of Haynes, conviction
for possession of an illegally made firearm contravenes the
incriminatory provisions of the Fifth Amendment. See Marshall v.
United States, 5 Cir., 1970, 422 F.2d 185, 193-195; Burton v.
United States, 5 Cir., 1969, 414 F.2d 261, 262-263, and the
numerous post-Haynes decisions from other courts cited therein,
which were decided prior to the enactment of the Gun Control Act of
1968, and which stand for the proposition that unlike a conviction
under the statutory registration requirements considered in Haynes
a conviction for possessing an illegally made firearm presents no
constitutional problems.

     Affirmed.

                            FOOTNOTES

1. We have concluded on the merits that this case is of the
character that does not justify oral argument. Therefore, we have
directed the Clerk to place the case on the Summary Calendar and to
notify the parties of this action in writing. 5 Cir.R. 18.