86 Hughes Amendment Vote footage located


PDA






AJAX22
November 17, 2010, 06:11 PM
As part of some research I've been doing I've been working on digging up the actual info regarding the Hughes amendment to the FOPA.

It turns out there may be video/audio evidence that the 86 machine gun ban amendment portion was never actually passed, but simply recorded as having been passed.

The congressional record indicates that the recorded vote (taken before the vote which 'passed' it) was defeated 298 to 124with 12 not voting

Here is a PDF of the relevant section of April 10th

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B4xHVurgr6T4NmRkYjJmZTYtM2MzNS00ODk2LWJjODYtYWY4ZDAzY2Q0NjEz&sort=name&layout=list&num=50

Here is a TXT file of the relevant section of April 10th

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B4xHVurgr6T4NDMwM2YyZWYtNmFlNS00MDRkLWJhZDYtNmY3Y2Q4NjU0ODcw&hl=en

Here is a PDF of the full section of April 10th

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B4xHVurgr6T4NDU5NjhhNGEtYjRlMy00YTQxLWE5MTUtMzhjMGNlNDA0ODk2&sort=name&layout=list&num=50



There are no available video archives of the 1986 house vote, as the C-span tapes were all destroyed, and I haven't been able to find a copy of any aired footage in any of the available video archives or footage companies.

However, the Library of congress DOES have a copy

using the time data from the congressional record it is clear that the tapes we need are:

Contents:
09:57-11:29 (VTA 0236)
11:26-13:00 (VTA 0237)
http://lccn.loc.gov/91796859



I'm submitting a price quote request, and should (if I can swing it) have a copy of the DVD here in a month or two, at which time I'll put the relevant sections on Youtube.

So... stay tuned... we may have Charlie Rangel on video falsifying the congressional record, and thereby eliminating the creation of transferable machine guns.


Anyway, I just wanted to post this info up here so that if for whatever reason I'm unable to get the tape (cost, time, etc.) someone else can pick up where I left off.

If you enjoyed reading about "86 Hughes Amendment Vote footage located" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
TheCol.U.S.M.C.
November 17, 2010, 06:24 PM
Good luck that would be so nice if we could prove that one ask for help if you need it

Gord
November 17, 2010, 06:33 PM
So to clarify, is there any actionable legal recourse to this?

AJAX22
November 17, 2010, 06:36 PM
So to clarify, is there any actionable legal recourse to this?

No, Separation of powers will not allow for the judiciary to rule on congressional malfeasance. It was up to congress of 1986 to deal with it before it was signed into law.

bsctov
November 17, 2010, 07:35 PM
So, if theres no legal recourse, the point of this is?....

Rail Driver
November 17, 2010, 07:37 PM
No, Separation of powers will not allow for the judiciary to rule on congressional malfeasance. It was up to congress of 1986 to deal with it before it was signed into law.

I don't entirely believe this. Do you have a legal background as a constitutional lawyer or judge? Can you back up the comment with a citation? One of the fundamentals of our government is the legal right to file suit with the federal government in order to challenge something that they're doing and we, as the people, don't approve of. Unfortunately it's an extremely rarely exercised right due to the cost of doing battle with the U.S. Government on their home field (the court room as well as the media).

9teenEleven
November 17, 2010, 07:43 PM
The vote for the amendment was not a "legal" action per se. The vote for the bill that the unpassed amendment was attached to, however, was.

DoubleTapDrew
November 17, 2010, 08:26 PM
Sooo we could find a NFA friendly senator to paperclip an unpassed amendment to some other bill that could...say, do away with the hughes amendment and reopen the registry (and make suppressor transfers $5)?

RhinoDefense
November 18, 2010, 01:54 AM
I've been saying this for many years. The amendment didn't actually pass.

DannyinJapan
November 18, 2010, 03:51 AM
Right now would be a good time to get rid of those pesky earmarks..

Sebastian the Ibis
November 18, 2010, 09:22 AM
Thanks Ajax! I was just actually thinking about this.

AJAX22
November 18, 2010, 04:06 PM
Ok guys,

It appears I had made an error earlier, (The April 9th files were actually a typo I had made in my notes, the stuff I had been looking at was actually the 10th)

All the stuff on April 9th was procedural and wasn't particularly relevant to what we were looking for. All the good stuff is on the 10th. So I've rectified the issue. Thankfully I caught it before the film order was placed.

So... This is a little bit of good news, as that is 1.5 hours of film that I don't have to order.

The correct info has been updated in the 1st post and here it is again:

****

Essentially, there may be video/audio evidence that the 86 machine gun ban (Hughes amendment) was never actually passed, but simply recorded as having been passed.

The congressional record indicates that the recorded vote (taken before the vote which 'passed' it) was defeated 298 to 124with 12 not voting

Here is a PDF of the relevant section of April 10th

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B4xHVurgr6T4NmRkYjJmZTYtM2MzNS00ODk2LWJjODYtYWY4ZDAzY2Q0NjEz&sort=name&layout=list&num=50

Here is a TXT file of the relevant section of April 10th

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B4xHVurgr6T4NDMwM2YyZWYtNmFlNS00MDRkLWJhZDYtNmY3Y2Q4NjU0ODcw&hl=en

Here is a PDF of the full section of April 10th

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B4xHVurgr6T4NDU5NjhhNGEtYjRlMy00YTQxLWE5MTUtMzhjMGNlNDA0ODk2&sort=name&layout=list&num=50



There are no available video archives of the 1986 house vote, as the C-span tapes were all destroyed, and I haven't been able to find a copy of any aired footage in any of the available video archives or footage companies.

However, the Library of congress DOES have a copy

using the time data from the congressional record it is clear that the tapes we need is:

Contents: 09:57-11:29 (VTA 0236)
11:26-13:00 (VTA 0237)
http://lccn.loc.gov/91796859



I'm submitting a price quote request, and should (if I can swing it) have a copy of the DVD here in a month or two, at which time I'll put the relevant sections on Youtube.

So... stay tuned... we may have Charlie Rangel on video falsifying the congressional record, and thereby eliminating the creation of transferable machine guns.

Rail Driver
November 18, 2010, 05:08 PM
How does the updated information affect the premise of the post? (possible legal action against the Hughes Amendment)

AJAX22
November 18, 2010, 05:21 PM
The only thing affected is the references.

When generating the documents (and consequently the initial film refference) I accidentally generated the document range for the 9th instead of the 10th.

I was doing my reaserch using primary sources, so the only screw up was that I made a PDF out of the wrong day to share with the rest of you.

I fixed it.

In the new PDF, the votes you will be most interested occur on page 12-14 iirc.

Sebastian the Ibis
November 18, 2010, 06:28 PM
The explanation I heard regarding the conference vote on the hughes amendment is that it is irrelevant since it was in the final bill which was voted on and approved. I don't know anything about congressional procedure, but if it were in the final bill which went to conference, I can't really see how the prior vote matters.

Prince Yamato
November 18, 2010, 07:20 PM
I soooo want to see this video. If the OP can get this up now, while the Rangel hearing is going on... oh won't that be sweet!

AJAX22
November 22, 2010, 07:39 PM
Here are some segments of the congressional record broken down to show what was going on.


Parts to note:


Hughes introduces his Machine gun banning amendment and attempts to have it NOT read, which is sneaky, since he's the only one who knows its in there (as illustrated by the little surprised comments from Volkmer).


AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. HUGHES TO THE
AMENDMENT, AS AMENDED, OFFERED BY MR.
VOLKMER AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE JUDICI-
ARY COMMITTEE AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE
OF A SUBSTITUTE, AS AMENDED
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment to the amendment of-
fered as a substitute for the committee
amendment in the nature of a substi-
tute.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I
have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
will state it.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman,
before the amendment is read, I would
like to know if the amendment was
one of those printed in the RECORD
prior to today.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will so
inquire of the gentleman from New
Jersey whether his amendment has
been printed in the RECoRD?
Mr. HUGHES. It has been printed in
the RECoaR, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will
read.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, has
it been printed in the RECORD by Mr.
HUOHES?
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, it
is not required that the sponsor of the
amendment have it printed in the
REcoRD.
The Clerk will report the amend-
ment.
The Clerk read as follows:

[SNIP- Just the text of the machine gun ban]

Mr. HUGHES (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the amendment be consid-
ered as read and printed in the
RECORD.

Hughes tries to avoid having it read the first time... remember, no one was expecting this, it wasn't up for a vote the night before, hughes had it entered in sometime between when the april 9th session ended and the early april 10th session began.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I
object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is
heard.
The Clerk continued the reading of
the amendment.
Mr. HUGHES (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I renew my request
that the amendment be considered as
read and printed in the RECORD. I ask
my colleagues, in all fairness and ra-
tionality-we only have 3 minutes
left-to give me an opportunity to ex-
plain why machineguns should be
banned.

With 3 minutes left, Huges tries a SECOND time to avoid having the bill read

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, regu-
lar order and reserving the right to
object-
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will
read.
The Clerk continued the reading of
the amendment.
Mr. HUGHES (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I renew my request for
a waiver of the reading of the amend-
ment.

Hughes tries a THIRD time to avoid having his amendment read

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chair-
man, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will
read.
The Clerk continued the reading of
the amendment.
Mr. HUGHES (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I renew my request for


)NGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE


a waiver of the reading of the amend-
ment, I do not know why anyone
would object to the banning of ma-
chineguns.

Hughes tries a FOURTH time to avoid having his amendment read (remember, he's interrupting it being read each and every time he does this)

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chair-
man, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is
heard.
The Clerk concluded the reading of
the amendment.


Hughes, with 140 seconds or so left to debate his bill, has everyone rise to vote, (we don't know if they actually get all the way through reading it... they may be voting on something they haven't even read) it gets slapped down hard


Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I
move that the Committee do now rise.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chair-
man, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Is it the Chair's
understanding that the gentleman
from New Jersey moves that the Com-
mittee do now rise?
Mr. HUGHES. That is my motion,
Mr. Chairman. I move that the Com-
mittee do now rise.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the motion offered by the gentleman
from New Jersey [Mr. HUGHES].
The question was taken;

NOTE: Mr Chairman (Good Ol, Charlie Rangel, AGAIN can't seem to tell that 298 is bigger than 124, and what a coincidence, he's one of the 124)


and the
Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
RECORDED VOTE
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chair-
man, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic
device, and there were-ayes 124, noes
298, not voting 12, as follows:
(Roll No. 73]


So... The electronic vote tally's everything up, and the motion/amendment has been soundly defeated... or has it?

Some guy named Weiss, uses up the last of the time going on a TOTALLY unrelated diatribe about martin luther king and random stuff totally un related to machine guns..


0 1130
The CHAIRMAN. All time has ex-
pired for consideration of the Hughes
amendment to the Volkmer substitute.
For what purpose does the gentle-
man from New Jersey [Mr. HUGHES]
rise?

Time has run out, Hughes, desperately tries to get some more time to explain why machine guns are bad

Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I have
a unanimous-consent request.
Mr. Chairman, I made the motion to
rise so that I could get additional time
for the Rules Committee to finish
debate on a number of amendments
that were noticed, have not been
reached and will not be heard, and
that is unfortunate. It is an important
matter.
My unanimous-consent request is
that I have 5 minutes to explain this
vote.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. A point of
order. Mr. Chairman, that is not a
proper Inquiry.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, a
point of order. Regular order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
will state his unanimous-consent re-
quest.
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, my
unanimous request is that I have 5
minutes to explain this vote on ma-
chinegun bans.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
Mr. McCOLLUM. Reserving the
right to object, Mr. Chairman, would
the gentleman explain why he wants
that 5 minutes?
Mr. HUGHES. So we can explain
what is pending before the House.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I
withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey [Mr. HUGHES]?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chair-
man, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is
heard.

Because he framed it as a unanimous consent, a simple objection overrules the request by Hughes for more time


The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. HUGHES] to the amend-
ment, as amended, offered by the gen-
tleman from Missouri [Mr. VOLKMER]
as a substitute for the Judiciary Com-
mittee amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.

This is where the voice vote is supposed to have occurred

The amendment to the amendment,
as amended, offered as a substitute for
the Judiciary Committee amendment
in the nature of a substitute, as
amended, was agreed to.



So, no record of the vote is made, no objections are made to the declaration (BY Charlie Rangel) that it passed... kind of strange, considering he's been 100% wrong all day in calling these things...

Everyone apparently is getting ready for the ultimate vote on the bill which is up next.





The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment, as amended, offered
by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
VOLKMER], as a substitute for the Judi-
ciary Committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute, as amended.
The question was taken; and the
Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

Well, wouldn't you know it Charlie Rangel calls it for his team AGAIN...


April 10, 1986


RECORDED VOTE
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I
demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic
device, and there were-ayes 286, noes
136, not voting 12, as follows:


Once again, Rangel is wrong, 286 apparently is bigger than 136 and the FOPA passes.



And thats how it happened.

PTK
November 23, 2010, 12:29 AM
My blood pressure didn't need that. I knew it had been a disgusting hoisting of the amendment in there, but geeze. :(

JustinL
November 23, 2010, 09:40 AM
So now that we know, what can we do?

TexasRifleman
November 23, 2010, 10:35 AM
So now that we know, what can we do?

Probably nothing. I don't think this is a surprise to anyone.

The problem is Reagan asked the NRA if he should still sign this. He could have sent it back to Congress but he didn't. The NRA encouraged him to sign anyway, saying that Hughes could be dealt with later.

At this point I think we should hold the NRA to that and demand they work on reversing Hughes.

Little chance of that either in my opinion, but the seed needs to be planted now. Maybe 10 years of arguing and it could be done. Machine guns have been left out of all the Heller etc arguments for fear of spoiling the fight. Now, post Heller, it's time to put them back into the debate.

I would love to see Gura and NRA etc take a case where someone filed a Form 1 and was denied a stamp to build an MG.

LiquidTension
November 23, 2010, 12:19 PM
Surely someone has tried to file a Form 1 for a new MG since 1986? All it takes is a little time, since they'll send the check back when they deny the form. Though I suppose the legal fees are what keeps anyone from embarking upon that particular journey.

AJAX22
November 23, 2010, 05:58 PM
Yea someone did, it was rock island v somebody in the 10th circuit....

The Hughes amendment was held to be unconstitutional since it invalidated the premise of the 34 Nfa.

The Feds asked The state to not appeal it so it stands.


If you wante to mount a challenge from that angle, you would need to find someone in a friendly 10th circuit state, (Wyoming would be ideal) and have them file a form 1 to obtain standing.

They could then try to pursue it to a higher level...

0VERKILL
November 24, 2010, 08:11 AM
Probably nothing. I don't think this is a surprise to anyone.

The problem is Reagan asked the NRA if he should still sign this. He could have sent it back to Congress but he didn't. The NRA encouraged him to sign anyway, saying that Hughes could be dealt with later.

At this point I think we should hold the NRA to that and demand they work on reversing Hughes.

Little chance of that either in my opinion, but the seed needs to be planted now. Maybe 10 years of arguing and it could be done. Machine guns have been left out of all the Heller etc arguments for fear of spoiling the fight. Now, post Heller, it's time to put them back into the debate.

I would love to see Gura and NRA etc take a case where someone filed a Form 1 and was denied a stamp to build an MG.
That's why I don't support the NRA, liars don't get my money. The day they decide to fight this and the NFA of '34 and '68 I'll send them a check for a lifetime membership.

Yea someone did, it was rock island v somebody in the 10th circuit
That interests me, any more specifics or a point in the right direction to where I can find more specifics?

TexasRifleman
November 24, 2010, 10:12 AM
That's why I don't support the NRA, liars don't get my money. The day they decide to fight this and the NFA of '34 and '68 I'll send them a check for a lifetime membership.

Almost the entire leadership of the NRA was ousted since then. The only way to change the NRAs direction is to be a member and vote.

Sitting on the outside waiting for them to "do something" will never work.

Surely someone has tried to file a Form 1 for a new MG since 1986?

Yes but not since Heller. Heller has the potential to change things. Maybe anyway.

Sebastian the Ibis
November 24, 2010, 12:29 PM
I would love to see Gura and NRA etc take a case..........

I'd love to see them work together too. If they did they'd be unstoppable, unfortunately they currently mix like oil and water.

DoubleTapDrew
November 24, 2010, 03:24 PM
Though I suppose the legal fees are what keeps anyone from embarking upon that particular journey.
Is there any reason someone couldn't start a collection for a legal fund for this? MG and potential MG buyers are fairly affluent and I bet it would top 7 figures pretty easily.
Throwing this in as evidence in that case could potentially be a heck of a bombshell for our side.

One-Time
November 24, 2010, 06:03 PM
If it didnt pass per the Constitution, as far as that amendment the amendment is null and void regardless if the bill was passed w/ it in there, that amendment did not pass so its invalid

DoubleTapDrew
November 24, 2010, 08:19 PM
that amendment did not pass so its invalid

Cool, can I call Colt and order a M4A1 now?

highorder
November 24, 2010, 08:30 PM
Quote:
I would love to see Gura and NRA etc take a case..........
I'd love to see them work together too. If they did they'd be unstoppable, unfortunately they currently mix like oil and water.

Then they should emulsify and tear down NFA 1934. :)

MrM4
November 27, 2010, 03:47 AM
The NRA doesnt give a damn about the NFA crowd and so alot of us dont give a damn about the NRA.

PX15
November 27, 2010, 09:17 AM
MrM4:

Respectfully,

The NRA has warts, and I'd be the last to say otherwise, but the truth is the NRA IS the only 800lb Gorilla in the room in The U.S. when it comes to the largest organization that stands up for our 2nd Amendment rights.

And has been for almost 140 years.

That gets my $25.00 membership fee each year.

No offense,

Jesse

Carl N. Brown
November 27, 2010, 10:24 AM
Video of the Hughes Amendment vote brings to mind the old quote "Laws are like sausages, it is better not to see them being made." -- Otto von Bismarck

With what do we compare a bad law?

From the "control" side, the NFA machine gun registry was a "good" law: 1934 to 1986, ~125,000 machine guns were registered to civilian owners, with one violent crime (by a corrupt police officer) with a legally-registered machinegun. The Hughes Amendment demonstrates that "reasonable" to the gun control crowd is to ban whatever they think they can get away with banning in any underhanded way they can do it.

AJAX22
November 29, 2010, 04:36 PM
I hope this is ok to post, I'm not sure what the policy is regarding soliciting for donations.

The price quote is here, Looks like I need to find $391.25 to get the full two reels that will cover the initial vote, shenanigans, and the FOPA passage.

I currently have a zero balance in my paypal account so I can use that to collect contributions, with everything that shows up being put towards this project.

If you'd like to kick in a few bucks towards the project, my paypal address is EDITED, ALL FUNDS RAISED!!!and yes, I know paypal sucks, but it is what I've got already in place that can be used immediately to make this happen.

I'll keep this thread posted with updates and totals, Please include a note if you would like your contribution to remain anonymous.


I will not be keeping any funds not needed to cover the exact cost of obtaining footage.


Donations Received so far: (as of 12:14pm 11/29/210)

Dr Rockso--------------$20 (calguns)
Nick-------------------$100 (calguns)

PTK
November 29, 2010, 05:12 PM
I just kicked in $10. I'm hurting for cash, but this is a decent cause, if only to have physical copies of the footage. I assume you'll be able to eventually get the footage online and widespread? If so, I'd love to have the salient parts on my YouTube channel for reference. Might get seen a bit, I have about 3,000,000 views thus far. :)

AJAX22
November 29, 2010, 05:21 PM
Thank you,

Full footage will be uploaded to youtube, DVD's will be made available for 'research and archival purposes' via some of the gunnies who have offered their time/services to make sure hard copy gets distributed as well.

Note: according to the LOC duplication agreements, I can't use this footage for 'commercial or political purposes'

and I believe that also will bind anyone I give it to.

That said, don't use it to endorse any candidates, or promote a political party, and don't sell any copies for profit.

Donations Received so far: (as of 1:21pm 11/29/210)

Dr Rockso--------------$20 (calguns)
Nick-------------------$100 (calguns)
PTK...........................$10 (thehighroad.org)

AJAX22
November 29, 2010, 06:45 PM
Donations Received so far: (as of 4:46pm 11/29/210)

Total in hand ($210), total inbound $20, +$100 pledged from a donor at ar15.com

Dr Rockso--------------$20 (calguns)
Nick-------------------$100 (calguns)
PTK...........................$10 (thehighroad.org)
Ravenslair..................$40 (calguns)
tuolomejim.................$20 (calguns) inbound check
SpringfieldEMP.............$20 (calguns)
Jdude........................$100 (ar15.com) pending admin approval for solicitation
-----
Total pledged/donated---------$310
Total needed-------------------$391.25

Amount left--------------------$81.25

41magsnub
November 29, 2010, 07:26 PM
I just kicked in $30 via paypal

Ingsoc75
November 29, 2010, 09:02 PM
I just contributed $15.00 via PayPal.

PTK
November 29, 2010, 09:26 PM
We sure don't fool around, eh? Makes me proud to be pro-Constitution and among those who are like minded. :)


EDIT: My girlfriend just kicked in $10, as well. :)

MeiMei
November 29, 2010, 09:39 PM
EDIT: My girlfriend just kicked in $10, as well. :)

I sure did! Worthy cause for my hard-earned money. At least working for money can go to a cause that may well further my freedom. I hope, one day, we're a free nation again. :)

wally
November 29, 2010, 10:21 PM
Maybe we should demand an amnesty for our "undocumented" NFA items as a compromise for the undocumented immigrant amnesty. :evil:

PTK
November 29, 2010, 11:24 PM
wally,

Unfortunately, the wording of the Hughes amendment doesn't allow for an amnesty. At all. :(

AJAX22
November 29, 2010, 11:40 PM
Donations Received so far: (as of 7:31pm 11/29/210)

Total in hand ($308.83), total inbound $40, +$100 pledged from a donor at ar15.com

tuolomejim.................$20 (calguns) inbound check
wash.........................$20 (calguns) inbound check
---
$40 inbound via check

Dr Rockso--------------$20 (calguns) paypal
Nick-------------------$100 (calguns) paypal
PTK...........................$10 (thehighroad.org) paypal
Ravenslair..................$40 (calguns) paypal
SpringfieldEMP.............$20 (calguns) paypal
41magsnub..........................$30 (28.83 after fees) (thehighroad.org) paypal
Ke6guj......................$20 (calguns) paypal
??????.......................$20 (????) paypal
IngSoc........................$15 (thehighroad.org) paypal
MeiMei.....................$10 (thehighroad.org) paypal
Armygunsmith........................$25 (calguns) paypal
----
308.83

Jdude........................$100 (ar15.com) pending admin aproval for solicitation

-----
Total pledged/donated---------$'448.83

Total needed-------------------$391.25

Amount left--------------------$ Overpaid/overpleged $57.58




I'm going to inform the AR15 donor that we only need $42.42, not the full $100 he offered to make this happen.

I think we may have this handled guys!

the 2A community is amazing.... I can think of no other group of people who pull togeather to make things happen the way you guys do.

Please correct me if I have made a math error, or recorded your donation inccorectly.

AJAX22
November 29, 2010, 11:52 PM
PS. Thank you to all of those who have posted or PM'd me offering to cover any outstanding ballance.

If any problems arise with the current planned funding I will be sure to contact you, but as of now I think we have it covered.

You guys are amazing.

Marc

Zanad
November 30, 2010, 12:08 AM
so is there any chance we can see the video when you get it?

coltsfreak18
November 30, 2010, 12:09 AM
The plan is to post it on youtube.

AJAX22
November 30, 2010, 12:15 AM
I will post the full version on youtube immediatly, and an edited down/narative version will be about a week later.

DVD copies will be available through some of the gunnies who have voulenteered to distribute the footage for those of you who want hard copy to archive.

Zanad
November 30, 2010, 12:35 AM
I will post the full version on youtube immediatly, and an edited down/narative version will be about a week later.

DVD copies will be available through some of the gunnies who have voulenteered to distribute the footage for those of you who want hard copy to archive.

nice...

AJAX22
November 30, 2010, 04:15 PM
Here is a copy of the Order form/price quote/use guidelines from the LOC, I had asked for two price quotes, one for the full footage, and one for just the Hughes vote, so that's why there are two of them. (we are getting the full footage, as there may be valuable data there)

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u115/Ratduster77/FOPA%201986%20Vote%20Footage/VideoOrder-1.jpg

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u115/Ratduster77/FOPA%201986%20Vote%20Footage/VideoOrder-2.jpg

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u115/Ratduster77/FOPA%201986%20Vote%20Footage/VideoOrder-3.jpg

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u115/Ratduster77/FOPA%201986%20Vote%20Footage/VideoOrder-4.jpg


http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u115/Ratduster77/FOPA%201986%20Vote%20Footage/VideoOrder-5.jpg

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u115/Ratduster77/FOPA%201986%20Vote%20Footage/VideoOrder-6.jpg

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u115/Ratduster77/FOPA%201986%20Vote%20Footage/VideoOrder-7.jpg

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u115/Ratduster77/FOPA%201986%20Vote%20Footage/VideoOrder-8.jpg

DoubleTapDrew
November 30, 2010, 04:29 PM
Crack this sucker open :evil:

Zanad
November 30, 2010, 06:39 PM
oh, I cant wait.

AJAX22
December 2, 2010, 09:03 PM
A bit of good news, it looks like we will be able to upload this through a premium YouTube account... So it won't be 18 ten min film clips, but rather 3 one hour blocks.... Which makes my life a lot easier.

Very cool stuff

Justin
December 4, 2010, 01:54 PM
Ajax, thank you for undertaking this effort. Regardless of the outcome, you've done a great service for gun owners and the RKBA.

AJAX22
December 7, 2010, 08:19 PM
Thank you , but until we have the footage in hand, I haven't accomplished anything.

I have high hopes however, just need to be patient.

AJAX22
December 13, 2010, 04:13 PM
http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u115/Ratduster77/FOPA%201986%20Vote%20Footage/Reciept.jpg

Looks like they processed my order

So the wait continues...

DoubleTapDrew
December 13, 2010, 04:36 PM
Reminds me of the feeling I got when the BATFE cashed my check :)

4-9 weeks you were told?

AJAX22
December 14, 2010, 12:38 PM
yep 4-9 weeks (well, optimistically some places they listed the time as 4-6 weeks)

either way, its going to be a bit of a wait.

TheCol.U.S.M.C.
December 14, 2010, 01:24 PM
I hope your right on this one, might not change much, then again it might do some good

Thank you sir.

mr.trooper
December 14, 2010, 02:24 PM
First Wiki-leaks, and now this.

I try to give the benefit of doubt, but it's starting to look like the government is full of amoral, shiftless, crooked, degenerates.

waterhouse
December 14, 2010, 02:57 PM
Thank you , but until we have the footage in hand, I haven't accomplished anything.

Even if you don't find what you are looking for, you likely had a few people read this who learned more about the terrible amendment. Thanks for your efforts, and good luck in your search.

Hatterasguy
December 15, 2010, 11:09 PM
Fantastic, maybe this will turn something up to help out the cause!

DoubleTapDrew
December 22, 2010, 07:55 PM
I just wrote my congressman Greg Walden who is chairman of the House Majority Transition Committee, about this issue and sent him a link to this thread.
Today the house republicans introduced a draft set of rules for the 112th Congress which seeks to enact a "sea of change" in the way the house operates "-with greater openness, deliberation, efficiency and a closer adherence to the U.S. Constitution"
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/12/22/house-gop-unveils-strict-spending-ethics-rules-package-new-congress/
I felt it pertinent to let him know of what happened in the house in 1986, as well as applaud him for his efforts.

Looking forward to those tapes Ajax22!

Alecbh
December 26, 2010, 12:03 PM
This is awesome, guys. It really is impressive that a group would pull together this quickly. Hopefully something will be done about this before I'm dead. I've got ~60 years to wait, if I live long enough. :D

FIVETWOSEVEN
December 28, 2010, 02:23 AM
Hopefully someone will use this to challenge the Hughes!

DoctorOfLight
December 28, 2010, 12:50 PM
Put me down for a DVD hard copy, please. What's the charge?

S.W.G.
December 28, 2010, 02:00 PM
+1 on the DVD copy idea.

I understand that pumping out DVD's requires quite a bit of time and money, so have you considered making some kind of high-quality video file (mpeg-4, etc.) and making it avaliable for download on a website?

Ingsoc75
December 28, 2010, 04:32 PM
I understand that pumping out DVD's requires quite a bit of time and money, so have you considered making some kind of high-quality video file (mpeg-4, etc.) and making it avaliable for download on a website?

I think he plans on putting it up on YouTube, which the video can be downloaded from.

FIVETWOSEVEN
December 30, 2010, 11:30 PM
Next thing to do is either find someone with enough money to challenge Hughes or find some donators.

jobu07
December 31, 2010, 01:07 AM
Count me in for $100 towards the legal fund.

AJAX22
January 3, 2011, 12:13 AM
Next thing to do is either find someone with enough money to challenge Hughes or find some donators.

There is an outside possibility of something happening on that front, but it won't be related to the footage/procedure of how the amendment was passed but rather the taxation issues covered in U.S. v Dalton and U.S. v Rock Island.

AJAX22
January 3, 2011, 12:22 AM
+1 on the DVD copy idea.

I understand that pumping out DVD's requires quite a bit of time and money, so have you considered making some kind of high-quality video file (mpeg-4, etc.) and making it avaliable for download on a website?

DVD's will be available free of charge through a voulenteer network of duplicators... (I'll get into details a little bit later on, you may have to cover shipping/material costs but that will be up to the individual guys who are running off/shipping the copies, they won't be profiting on them in any way. (the condition of me running off a DVD copy for them was that they had to agree to distribute copies of the DVD to XXX number of people who requested it)... I don't have time to run off personal copies but copies for other people to make copies I'll make availble.

There are also individuals who will be seeding the video on torrents and others who will be hosting the complete raw video for download.

In addition a 2nd amendment non profit organization has offered to pay for a premium vimeo account to host this video the second it becomes available.

So, no worries, when I get it, you'll be able to see it....

GeorgeF
January 3, 2011, 03:17 PM
Huzzah! Great job with this. I for one would not mind taking a 'hit' on the value of my collection if that meant I could get more toys.

On an aside, think of all the cottage industry this would create. All that extra $$$ for the government at $200 per new MG. All those companies supplying parts and new designs. Not to mention all the EXTRA ammo that would be consumed to feed these toys.

What a wonderful way to boost the economy :)

Ingsoc75
January 4, 2011, 10:59 AM
Huzzah! Great job with this. I for one would not mind taking a 'hit' on the value of my collection if that meant I could get more toys.

On an aside, think of all the cottage industry this would create. All that extra $$$ for the government at $200 per new MG. All those companies supplying parts and new designs. Not to mention all the EXTRA ammo that would be consumed to feed these toys.

What a wonderful way to boost the economy :)

I agree. That's a good way of putting it.

cleardiddion
January 5, 2011, 02:00 AM
This sort of effort along with many other things is what makes me love this forum.
Keep up the amazing work!

SpaceFrank
January 5, 2011, 08:00 PM
AJAX, will you provide a link to the torrent file when it's ready? Thanks again for your efforts on this.

Girodin
January 5, 2011, 10:38 PM
Yea someone did, it was rock island v somebody in the 10th circuit....

That interests me, any more specifics or a point in the right direction to where I can find more specifics?

Not in the tenth circuit seeing as last I check IL was in the 7th but this may be the case to which he is referring.

US v. Rock Island Armory, Inc., 773 F. Supp. 117 - Dist. Court, CD Illinois 1991

I prefer lexis nexis and if you have access there are valuable aids that come with it but google scholar is free and offers the opinion.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2547942280855691373&q=Rock+Island+machine+gun&hl=en&as_sdt=20000000000002

I have done no other research on this issue, just the 30 seconds I spent finding the opinion and the 5 minutes I spent reading it. Interesting.

Edit to add that slightly more research (like another five minutes) reveals that the above cited case has received a fair amount of negative treatment including its reasoning being rejected by the 7th circuit arguably making it no longer good law See United States v. Ross, 9 F.3d 1182, 1192-94 (7th Cir.1993) (choosing to follow the Fourth Circuit's ruling in Jones, supra, over the decisions in Dalton and Rock Island Armory ). The issue appears to have been touched on by other district and circuit courts.

There is also a 10th circuit case: United States v. Dalton, 960 F.2d 121 (10th Cir.1992). I haven't read it in its entirety yet but if you punch the citation into google scholar you can get the text of that case.

The fourth circuit seems to have rejected the reasoning of Rock Island Armory in United States v. Jones, 976 F.2d 176 (4th Cir.1992).

I wish I had time to dig through all the case law and issues and to write something up on it. I simply don't right now, but maybe in the future. It seems fairly interesting.

Quaamik
January 8, 2011, 10:19 PM
GeorgeF said:
On an aside, think of all the cottage industry this would create. All that extra $$$ for the government at $200 per new MG. All those companies supplying parts and new designs. Not to mention all the EXTRA ammo that would be consumed to feed these toys.

What a wonderful way to boost the economy

Please mention this angle when writing to congress. The current congress got in office with a demand from voters to concentrate on the economy and the deficit. They aren't going to want to go off on a tangent (at least not early) unless they can relate it back to one of those.

Things to keep in mind:
- The AR 15 platform is the largest selling sinlge rifle model as of last year.
- The fire control componants to convert one to full auto could be made and sold for under $200 + the tax stamp.
- If around 1000 individuals per state where full auto is legal purchased either a full auto, or a conversion kit, that would add up to around 6 - 7 million per year in additional revenue for the goverment.
- Remember to mention that only 1 (or was it 2?) legaly registered machine guns were ever used in a crime, and that one by a police officer.

FIVETWOSEVEN
January 8, 2011, 11:19 PM
The conversion costs a few cents to make, but because of pricing it would be about $50.

Alecbh
January 9, 2011, 03:30 PM
Huzzah! Great job with this. I for one would not mind taking a 'hit' on the value of my collection if that meant I could get more toys.

On an aside, think of all the cottage industry this would create. All that extra $$$ for the government at $200 per new MG. All those companies supplying parts and new designs. Not to mention all the EXTRA ammo that would be consumed to feed these toys.

What a wonderful way to boost the economy

I posted almost this exact same thought on this forum a couple months ago as an angle to repeal the MG ban, and I was almost laughed out of the thread. :banghead: At least I know the majority understands it's a very valid point. :rolleyes::D

Ingsoc75
January 23, 2011, 09:14 PM
Any news on getting the footage online?

Dreamcast270mhz
January 23, 2011, 10:33 PM
Yeah lets get this thing gone for good

kenny87
January 24, 2011, 05:24 AM
I posted this on gun and game and its a method I thought of to repel Hughes that may have a chance if given the opportunity to be implemented somehow. Actually its not even repelling its more or less just modifying it. As I understand the Hughes amendment clearly made exceptions for LE and Govt agencies for ownership of post-86 machine guns.

Think about it, anti gun people don't want "individuals" to have access to these weapons.

Does a weapon need to be registered to an "individual" for him to have it. No, of course not.

What I am thinking is modifying the amendment to include businesses and corporations as an exception. It will simply look like a bill adding protection for organizations needing protection from criminal behavior or something. When in reality it allows any citizen to buy weapons for his corp, without any restrictions on what kind of corp it has to be.

Therefore civilians will still not have post-86 machine guns, but their business can. It would be letting civilians have these guns without really letting them have them.

Only real downside is the corp method is the least desirable and takes a small amount of funds to keep active.

dirt_j00
January 24, 2011, 10:22 AM
If you include trusts in that list with businesses and corporations, you might be on to something...

kenny87
January 24, 2011, 01:16 PM
problem is its harder to justify a trust to someone who doesn't want people to have these guns, a business would be doable I think. Trusts are generally exclusive for private property of individuals and would be almost as difficult to explain as letting individuals have ownership. Corporations would be easier to slide through I think.

Again, this would be a last alternative, the best thing would be to abolish this amendment all together.

AJAX22
January 24, 2011, 07:25 PM
IT IS HERE!!!!

WATCHING IT NOW!!!

WooooooO!!!!

I'm uploading as soon as i can

S.W.G.
January 24, 2011, 08:08 PM
Can't wait!

Prince Yamato
January 25, 2011, 02:51 AM
PLEASE post the link ASAP.

AJAX22
January 25, 2011, 03:50 AM
here you go, this is the highlight reel, I'll post full footage when its ready.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6Mx2UcSEvQ

kenny87
January 25, 2011, 08:37 AM
as some one who is an idiot when it comes to political matters, is there anything we can do with this?

Ingsoc75
January 25, 2011, 02:10 PM
Wow. Just wow.

Prince Yamato
January 25, 2011, 03:38 PM
A translation (I know nothing of congressional procedure):

(0:40): Roemer (D. LA) asks whether amendments to the bill not heard in the next 4 minutes will be invalid.

(0:53-1:11): Rangel (D) confirms that any amendments heard with in the next 4 minutes will not be offered.

(1:11-2:00): Hughes (D) asks for an extension on voting for his amendment, Rangel denies.

(~2:10-5:30): Hughes asks for a vote on an extension. Tries to have vote read. General chaos and yelling ensues. Hughes complains that MGs have no sporting value and that time is running out. Wants to get a waiver of the reading demanding to know why anyone would NOT want to ban MGs.

(5:30-6:00): Clerk finishes reading. Committee rises to vote.

(6:00): Voice vote. Rangel declares that AYEs have it. Recorded vote demanded. Rangel concedes to to electronic (recorded vote).

(6:45): Electronic vote recorded: 297 No / 124 Yes.
Hughes Amendment voted down!

(7:30): Hughes complains and wants to explain why he needs an MG ban.

(8:30): Rangel takes another voice vote, this time on the Volkmer substitute law and declares that the AYEs have it.

(9:00): Rangel (asks for clarification of Volkmer Substitute) again. This time with voice vote, NOs have it.

(9:15): Electronic vote requested.

(9:45): Volkmer substitute passes 286 YES / 136 No- contains language from Hughes bill.

(12:00): Votes for passing the bill as now revised: 291 Yes/129 NO

So, basically, the video has the MG ban passing via the Volkmer Substitute.
---
I will admit though, the whole thing is very confusing and chaotic to watch. Someone please correct any mistakes I made. The funny thing is, this amendment shouldn't have been allowed to be added, given that no new amendments could be added after the 4 minute mark. Although, I'm not sure if a substitute bill counts as an amendment or a different bill entirely... Someone who knows congressional procedure, PLEASE clarify.

FIVETWOSEVEN
January 25, 2011, 05:07 PM
Disgusting, thats just disgusting.

This should hopefully be enough to defeat it.

Samsonite
January 25, 2011, 05:19 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, at 8:18 Rangle says " the Question is on the adoption of the Hughes Amendment to the Volkmer Substitute" in which they do a voice vote again with Mr. Rangle saying the ayes have it. You hear people in the background saying "Let it go, Let it go..." Wasn't it this re-vote that attached the Hughes amendment to the Volkmer bill? Why didn't anyone demand a recorded vote again like the first time? Definitely shady at best.

Dreamcast270mhz
January 25, 2011, 08:18 PM
Well we can still say the amendment never passed and therefore not enforceable

Zoogster
January 25, 2011, 09:07 PM
WOW!


The Hughes Amendment was voted on by voice vote, from the audio it clearly sounds like the no's had it, but he said it passed. Then they take an accurate electronic vote and as the audio had indicated prior it was mainly no's that had it.


The speaker then indicated that "All time has expired in consideration of the Hughes Amendment to the Volkmer substitute".
The Hughes Amendment was defeated and all time for consideration of that specific Amendment was expired.
Then Hughes complains and creates confusion.


I wonder how many were confused at that point and didn't understand what was being done and when they heard Volkmer, a project many had worked on (FOPA) and voted in favor of it not realizing the Hughes Amendment which had already been defeated was yet again tacked on.

Or was the house really that quick to adjust their votes 180 degrees just because someone complains and give whoever is stalling their day their way? It would have been sad if all you had to do back then was take a stance and hold up progress for a few minutes to get your way and have 100 votes switch over without any argument presented at all.
I don't really think that is what happened, they didn't all change their minds in a minute without hearing any new arguments.



Does anyone have a history of the McClure-Volkmer Act to see if it had previously had any adjustments or amendments at another time before it was voted on at this time?
I know many in Congress don't know exactly what they are voting on sometimes and having had adviser tell such representatives to "support the Volkmer Act" could have confused the issue after having the just defeated Hughes Amendment tacked on again.
They vote on numerous bills that go through the House and they only have partial understanding on many things they vote on throughout a session.
A lot of legislation has previously had many amendments and refinements before they finally get to the final form and passage so addressing it as such may not have made what had happened apparent to those representatives not intimately familiar with the legislation's history.


That is what you get when Congress is busy passing legislation non stop and 50% of the people don't really know what they are voting on, just an aide or adviser's summary and how they are supposed to vote when they hear the title.


They defeated the Hughes Amendment quite clearly, announced all time was up on it, and then passed the Hughes Amendment in a less than straightforward way. While Hughes references unrelated amendments they won't get to and makes no real argument for the one just defeated.


Thank you for obtaining this, I was wondering what the truth was, and this shows it was a confusing mess that only a strong gun rights representative familiar with the McClure Volkmer Act would have even understood. Some of your typical representatives would have been confused, something defeated they were against when clearly voted on somehow then was amended to something they knew they were supposed to vote for...
And they vote for it. Passing what they had already defeated along with it.

Part of the blame is probably with the speaker who didn't keep clear command and proper sense of direction.
I have the benefit of watching it a few times, some of those in the moment not familiar with the legislation in question would have been confused.

Prince Yamato
January 25, 2011, 10:28 PM
Part of the blame is probably with the speaker who didn't keep clear command and proper sense of direction.
I have the benefit of watching it a few times, some of those in the moment not familiar with the legislation in question would have been confused.

No kidding, it's like opening day on Wall-Street! A total zoo! I'm rewatching it and I'm now second guessing my first analysis!

DoubleTapDrew
January 25, 2011, 11:06 PM
It confused me too. Are there any folks on here familiar with house procedures or at least able to understand parlimentary prodedure to decipher exactly what happend, and if there is anything we can do about it at this point? PLEASE!!!! :o

Zoogster
January 27, 2011, 01:21 AM
No kidding, it's like opening day on Wall-Street! A total zoo!

Rangel, the guy with the gavel, was also extremely anti-gun and was engaged in a lot of anti-gang activity in the 80s and saw guns as something that needed banning.
He got his way in the chaos.
Here is some of Rangel's current beliefs as of this month:

http://rangel.house.gov/2011/01/standing-up-to-gun-violence.html



He first said the Hughes amendment passed by voice vote, then a recorded vote which actually has people enter a vote clearly showed it didn't.
Then later he does a voice vote again on the same exact thing that was already defeated just a few minutes prior.
He never gets an electronic vote this time, obviously it failed just like the first time yet Rangel just declares the Volkmer act amended with the Hughes Amendment at 8:29 in that clip.
Rangel through this sly manipulation intended to kill the FOPA/Volkmer Act.
He then never gives the opportunity to address that or get an electronic vote.
After some gavel pounding he then immediately says "The question before the committee is on the Volkmer substitute as amended. He asks for a vote on the Volkmer act, which has now been Amended with the Hughes Amendment as declared by Randel in 8:29 after the voice vote that was never allowed an electronic vote.
Since the Volkmer act has now been amended, if it is voted down the entire FOPA goes down and has to start over, and FOPA was a strong pro gun bill with a lot of work put into it that many representatives had been told to support.
Randel then declares FOPA to not have passed after a voice vote, FOPA is finished, just as the Hughes amendment was intended to do. Rangel once again for the third time in a few minutes declares a voice vote to be the exact opposite of what it was.
However on this vote someone then is able to demand an electronic vote, unlike on the second confusing Hughes Amendment. The vote clearly shows FOPA is passed and FOPA goes into law with the Hughes Amendment.


Rangel declared three voice votes the opposite of what they really were (as the two verified by electronic vote clearly showed), but unfortunately the middle one didn't get an electronic verification that he was wrong and that was the second time they voted on the Hughes amendment.
So when the Hughes amendment vote was verified the first time it showed the result was the opposite of Rangel declaring it had passed, it had failed by a wide margin.
When he declared FOPA failed after voice vote the electronic verification clearly showed he was wrong again in declaring it to have not passed.
From the sound and the evidence it was pretty clear the second time they voted on the Hughes amendment it had failed again, but Rangel managed to speed things along without an electronic vote that time.



Can you imagine if a First Amendment freedom would have vanished in such a manner?
All books after X date dealing with Y subjects couldn't be published? Only books on those subjects produced before that date could be transferred.
With various exempted classes, like politicians, certain lawyers...
All by slyly tacking it on to a pro freedom of speech bill?

wannasupra
January 27, 2011, 06:12 PM
just to put it out there, whether these weapons are used in a crime or not are totally moot, since crime, by definition, is already illegal. so if it turns out that this amendment was never lawfully passed, what does that mean for the everyday firearm enthusiast?

LawofThirds
January 28, 2011, 12:57 AM
It would mean that all the money spent on full auto at current prices would have not been a sound investment.

Dan Forrester
January 28, 2011, 11:41 AM
It would mean that all the money spent on full auto at current prices would have not been a sound investment.

Who would be stupid enough to purchase full auto MGs as an investment?

I own one and would gladly see its value go down to zero. Every time we try to discuss the Hughes Amendment someone has to chime in and talk about how that 1 in 10,000 MG owner will get upset because the value of his “investments” went down.

Sorry to rant.

Dan

wannasupra
January 28, 2011, 01:06 PM
So i'd be able to pick up an m4, identical to my issue weapon, for not much more than the semi auto costs now, plus a tax stamp, correct?

Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk

DoubleTapDrew
January 28, 2011, 03:45 PM
He first said the Hughes amendment passed by voice vote, then a recorded vote which actually has people enter a vote clearly showed it didn't.
Then later he does a voice vote again on the same exact thing that was already defeated just a few minutes prior.
He never gets an electronic vote this time, obviously it failed just like the first time yet Rangel just declares the Volkmer act amended with the Hughes Amendment at 8:29 in that clip.

That's what I'm confused about. The first vote was on the "motion to rise", which he said passed but electronic vote showed it did not. What is a motion to rise? Isn't that just a motion to end debate so it can be voted on?

So i'd be able to pick up an m4, identical to my issue weapon, for not much more than the semi auto costs now, plus a tax stamp, correct?

Correct. You could also pick up a M249 SAW to keep it company if you desire (and have the cash).

Flynt
January 28, 2011, 04:29 PM
I used to know Congressional procedure pretty well, and I doubt very much has changed. I haven't seen the video or read the transcript, but I am aware of two salient facts:

1. Regarding House procedures, when it's all said & done, what it comes down to is that anything is "legal" as long as no one objects. You can break House rules all day long and it's kosher if no one objects.

2. If any given provision made it into the House-Senate conference report (bill) and was signed by the President, it doesn't matter how it got there. Technically, a conference report is not supposed to contain any language that did not originate in legislation passed by the full House and/or Senate. However, I have seen many things inserted in the dead of night, and as long as no one hollered, they were signed into law.

Hope this was helpful.

wannasupra
January 28, 2011, 05:29 PM
honestly i'm not the biggest fan of the 249. i'd take a 30mm to put in the yard :p

pjlaw1
January 28, 2011, 06:52 PM
Huge. I hear a lot of objections. Craziness. Thank goodness for electronic voting. Lets push the NRA to take action.

SharpsDressedMan
January 28, 2011, 07:45 PM
I'm so confused. Can somebody re-iterate exactly what the REAL, bona fide, accountable vote was, now that we have the "evidence"? Does this released footage prove or disprove the validity of the amendment?

Zoogster
January 29, 2011, 10:17 PM
DoubleTapDrew that appears correct.
I have been confused by the chaotic approach myself. The first vote was to rise, the second the Hughes Amendment, and the third FOPA.
Rangel clearly was wrong on the results of the voice votes that were checked by electronic vote.


The passage of the Hughes Amendment may not have actually passed by vote, but the votes were not checked electronically and it was declared passed and allowed to proceed.
Without an objection by someone at that time period and the eventual signing of the legislation into law it would be considered legitimate.

Proving it did or did not pass the voice vote with enough conviction to bring challenge before a court seems unlikely. You would need video of every member of the house during the voice vote to see exactly what their lips are saying or when they make noise to even begin a case.
How loud the crowd sounds is only speculation.
This video does not show that, though it does appears there was other cameras rolling at the time.
As Flynt points out it may not even matter because if allowed to proceed without challenge or objection the end result may be valid under house rules at the time.


I have also heard that some pro-gun members of the house were absent when it passed. I do not know the credibility of that statement.
Some investigative work could certainly be done to determine who was present as we as how every member voted on the bill, but that would probably require an extensive amount of time and may not turn up a desired or relevant result.




The Amendments intended by Hughes were designed to kill the FOPA bill, a pro-gun bill that provided some protections.
You can hear him upset that not all of his Amendments will even be heard, he was only able to get the machinegun ban voted on in the time allotted, and even then they exceeded the time limit to do so.

FOPA still passed, but due to the Hughes Amendment also instated the new machinegun restrictions, restrictions that Hughes clearly himself intended to be a "ban", wording he himself chose in the house.


I do not myself see any way to challenge this as a violation of house procedure. Whether the law is Constitutional is a valid question, but it would appear whether this Hughes legislation was passed is a settled question.

WeedWacker
January 30, 2011, 02:37 AM
I do not myself see any way to challenge this as a violation of house procedure. Whether the law is Constitutional is a valid question, but it would appear whether this Hughes legislation was passed is a settled question.

i see what you mean. Could an eventual challenge to the constitutionality of the closing of the registry leading to financially barring citizens from ownership be argued? It's not a written ban so much as it prohibits lower income individuals from obtaining these types of arms due to driving up prices for transferable machine gun parts which can never be replaced once they break.

waldonbuddy
January 30, 2011, 07:13 PM
Man the timing of this couldn't be any worse, however I guess we should just be glad it was found.

What would be the next step in this? I wrote my congress men last week, still waiting for a reply.

Prince Yamato
January 31, 2011, 02:29 AM
I do not myself see any way to challenge this as a violation of house procedure. Whether the law is Constitutional is a valid question, but it would appear whether this Hughes legislation was passed is a settled question.

I contacted one of my friends from college who works in constitutional law. Basically he said (I'm paraphrasing) that although the house may not have followed proper procedure, the vote still passed because it was signed into law. The circumstances surrounding it may not constitute a violation of constitutional law, but they probably are a violation of house procedure. It is unlikely that a court will hear a case from 25 years ago, based on a minute slight of procedure. That being said, it doesn't mean that a court couldn't hear the case, just that it would be unlikely.

Personally, I think the best way to get our MGs back would be to pull a pro-gun version of what Hughes did; slip it in a bill that people really want to pass.

Ingsoc75
January 31, 2011, 09:03 AM
Personally, I think the best way to get our MGs back would be to pull a pro-gun version of what Hughes did; slip it in a bill that people really want to pass.

I agree.

DoubleTapDrew
February 1, 2011, 04:22 PM
Paperclip the 'repeal 922o and 922r' amendment to the back of the "Miniature American flags for disabled children" bill.

FIVETWOSEVEN
March 1, 2011, 03:55 PM
Been awhile since someone posted here, is anything going to materialize out of this?

mgregg85
March 1, 2011, 11:09 PM
Sounds like its about done, barring a miracle. We know Rangel broke the rules and manipulated the voice vote to get the Hughes amendment passed but we cannot do anything about it. Essentially its ok to cheat in congress as long as no one figures it out until after the bill is signed by the POTUS.

TheHighRoadDude
March 10, 2011, 12:46 AM
This just makes my blood boil! :fire:

Flynt
March 10, 2011, 10:43 AM
It cuts both ways. I was around when a lot of sausage was being made, and sometimes saw the rules bent or broken. Sometimes I agreed with the result and sometimes I didn't.

alsaqr
March 10, 2011, 11:35 AM
Personally, I think the best way to get our MGs back would be to pull a pro-gun version of what Hughes did; slip it in a bill that people really want to pass.

So do i. Now we have to find a congressman willing to do that. No congress critter wants his/her name on anything that will make it easier to own NFA weapons.

DoubleTapDrew
March 10, 2011, 12:36 PM
^ Find a pro-gun congress critter who is planning to retire after this term anyway so there are no fears about re-election.

dzelenka
March 11, 2011, 06:24 PM
I watched all of this live when it occurred. There is no way the amendment passed on the voice vote. Rangel just declared it passed. Congress at work. It was pretty disgusting.

ScottyPotty
March 11, 2011, 07:29 PM
Yes it is:fire:

If you enjoyed reading about "86 Hughes Amendment Vote footage located" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!