Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

86 Hughes Amendment Vote footage located

Discussion in 'NFA Firearms and Accessories' started by AJAX22, Nov 17, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. AJAX22

    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:

    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: Nov 18, 2010
  2. TheCol.U.S.M.C.

    TheCol.U.S.M.C. Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2010
    Messages:
    98
    Location:
    Phoenix AZ
    Good luck that would be so nice if we could prove that one ask for help if you need it
     
  3. Gord

    Gord Member

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,829
    Location:
    Behind enemy lines
    So to clarify, is there any actionable legal recourse to this?
     
  4. AJAX22

    AJAX22 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,161
    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.
     
  5. bsctov

    bsctov Member

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2009
    Messages:
    336
    So, if theres no legal recourse, the point of this is?....
     
  6. Rail Driver

    Rail Driver Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2010
    Messages:
    2,525
    Location:
    Quincy, FL
    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).
     
  7. 9teenEleven

    9teenEleven Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2009
    Messages:
    186
    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.
     
  8. DoubleTapDrew

    DoubleTapDrew Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2006
    Messages:
    5,356
    Location:
    Oregon
    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)?
     
  9. RhinoDefense

    RhinoDefense Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    Messages:
    883
    I've been saying this for many years. The amendment didn't actually pass.
     
  10. DannyinJapan

    DannyinJapan Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2005
    Messages:
    112
    Location:
    Texas
    Right now would be a good time to get rid of those pesky earmarks..
     
  11. Sebastian the Ibis
    • Contributing Member

    Sebastian the Ibis Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,818
    Location:
    "The Gunshine State"
    Thanks Ajax! I was just actually thinking about this.
     
  12. AJAX22

    AJAX22 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,161
    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:

    ****
     
    Last edited: Nov 18, 2010
  13. Rail Driver

    Rail Driver Member

    Joined:
    Apr 16, 2010
    Messages:
    2,525
    Location:
    Quincy, FL
    How does the updated information affect the premise of the post? (possible legal action against the Hughes Amendment)
     
  14. AJAX22

    AJAX22 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,161
    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.
     
  15. Sebastian the Ibis
    • Contributing Member

    Sebastian the Ibis Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,818
    Location:
    "The Gunshine State"
    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.
     
  16. Prince Yamato

    Prince Yamato Member

    Joined:
    Aug 16, 2006
    Messages:
    4,410
    Location:
    Texas
    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!
     
  17. AJAX22

    AJAX22 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,161
    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).


    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..


    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.

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



    And thats how it happened.
     
  18. PTK

    PTK Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2007
    Messages:
    3,712
    Location:
    Montana
    My blood pressure didn't need that. I knew it had been a disgusting hoisting of the amendment in there, but geeze. :(
     
  19. JustinL

    JustinL Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2008
    Messages:
    277
    Location:
    Orlando, FL
    So now that we know, what can we do?
     
  20. TexasRifleman

    TexasRifleman Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    18,302
    Location:
    Ft. Worth
    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.
     
  21. LiquidTension

    LiquidTension Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2003
    Messages:
    2,881
    Location:
    SC
    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.
     
  22. AJAX22

    AJAX22 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    1,161
    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...
     
  23. 0VERKILL

    0VERKILL Member

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2009
    Messages:
    20
    Location:
    Harlan, KY
    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.

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

    TexasRifleman Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2003
    Messages:
    18,302
    Location:
    Ft. Worth
    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.

    Yes but not since Heller. Heller has the potential to change things. Maybe anyway.
     
  25. Sebastian the Ibis
    • Contributing Member

    Sebastian the Ibis Member

    Joined:
    Mar 30, 2008
    Messages:
    1,818
    Location:
    "The Gunshine State"
    I'd love to see them work together too. If they did they'd be unstoppable, unfortunately they currently mix like oil and water.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page