86 Hughes Amendment Vote footage located

Status
Not open for further replies.
LawofThirds said:
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
 
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
 
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).
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Huge. I hear a lot of objections. Craziness. Thank goodness for electronic voting. Lets push the NRA to take action.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Paperclip the 'repeal 922o and 922r' amendment to the back of the "Miniature American flags for disabled children" bill.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
^ Find a pro-gun congress critter who is planning to retire after this term anyway so there are no fears about re-election.
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top