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.