86 Hughes Amendment Vote footage located

Status
Not open for further replies.

AJAX22

Member
Joined
Nov 9, 2005
Messages
1,161
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

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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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).
 
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.
 
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)?
 
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

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.
 
Last edited:
How does the updated information affect the premise of the post? (possible legal action against the Hughes Amendment)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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!
 
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.
 
My blood pressure didn't need that. I knew it had been a disgusting hoisting of the amendment in there, but geeze. :(
 
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.
 
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.
 
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...
 
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?
 
Overkill said:
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.

LiquidTension said:
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top