Hughes amendment on Banning Full Auto

[Bill2e]

With the following two quotes and the way the full auto ban was added to the 1986 bill, how is the prohibition on manufacturing full auto weapons even remotely constitutional?

United States vs. Miller
The US vs. Miller has long been used by the gun control crowd as proof of the Second Amendment not being an individual right. In fact, the Supreme Court said no such thing. The ruling said that they had no proof that a sawed off shotgun was a militia weapon.

The Hughes Amendment
The restrictions on full-auto firearms are a result of the Hughes Amendment (99th Congress, H.AMDT.777). The amendment prohibited the general public from possessing fully-auto firearms manufactured after May 19, 1986. Rep. William Hughes (D-N.J.) proposed the amendment late in debate and at night when most of the members of the House were gone. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), a long proponent of gun control, was presiding over the House at that time and a voice vote was taken. Despite the fact that the bill appeared to fail, Rep. Rangel declared the amendment approved and it was incorporated into House Bill 4332. Once passing the House, H.R.4332 was incorporated in its entirety into S.49. The Senate passed the final S.49 on April 10, 1986 by voice vote and it was signed by the President on May 19, 1986.

 

[El Tejon]

Commerce Clause=Thor's Hammer of Unlimited Government

 

[DigitalWarrior]

El Tejon, Every time I see the statement that the commerce clause grants unlimited power I send an except from Federalist paper 41

Some, who have not denied the necessity of the power of taxation, have grounded a very fierce attack against the Constitution, on the language in which it is defined. It has been urged and echoed, that the power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States," amounts to an unlimited commission to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare. No stronger proof could be given of the distress under which these writers labor for objections, than their stooping to such a misconstruction.

Had no other enumeration or definition of the powers of the Congress been found in the Constitution, than the general expressions just cited, the authors of the objection might have had some color for it; though it would have been difficult to find a reason for so awkward a form of describing an authority to legislate in all possible cases. A power to destroy the freedom of the press, the trial by jury, or even to regulate the course of descents, or the forms of conveyances, must be very singularly expressed by the terms "to raise money for the general welfare.

"But what color can the objection have, when a specification of the objects alluded to by these general terms immediately follows, and is not even separated by a longer pause than a semicolon? If the different parts of the same instrument ought to be so expounded, as to give meaning to every part which will bear it, shall one part of the same sentence be excluded altogether from a share in the meaning; and shall the more doubtful and indefinite terms be retained in their full extent, and the clear and precise expressions be denied any signification whatsoever? For what purpose could the enumeration of particular powers be inserted, if these and all others were meant to be included in the preceding general power? Nothing is more natural nor common than first to use a general phrase, and then to explain and qualify it by a recital of particulars. But the idea of an enumeration of particulars which neither explain nor qualify the general meaning, and can have no other effect than to confound and mislead, is an absurdity, which, as we are reduced to the dilemma of charging either on the authors of the objection or on the authors of the Constitution, we must take the liberty of supposing, had not its origin with the latter.

Publius - Federalist 41

But what did Madison know, only being "the Father of the Constitution".

 

[Spartacus451]

Commerce Clause=Thor's Hammer of Unlimited Government

Maybe "Commerce Clause + Supreme Court=Thor's Hammer of Unlimited Government"

 

[TexasRifleman]

But what did Madison know, only being "the Father of the Constitution".

But he's not here, today we have AG Mukasey, Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, and Souter.

Mukasey is clearly insane and preoccupied with machine guns, which really makes his amicus brief sound like the rantings of an insane person, so it's these 3 Justices we have to worry about.

 

[Gunnerpalace]

I've heard rumors that Stevens might go with us.

 

[RNB65]

how is the prohibition on manufacturing full auto weapons even remotely constitutional?

There is no ban on manufacturing full auto weapons. There's only a ban on registering them with the BATFE.

Considering that the passage of the Hughes Amendment itself was an illegal act (I will go to my grave despising Charley Rangel), the constitutionality of anything related to it should be a moot point. But due to a pathetic SCOTUS, the illegitimate and blatantly illegal Hughes Amendment is still the law of the land two decades later.

 

[thexrayboy]

How is the Hughes amendment constitutional? It's not. Neither is the NFA act of 1934, GCA of 1968, the Mcain-Feingold act, the military commissions act that suspends Habeus Corpus, civil asset forfeiture laws that allow theft by LEO without criminal charges, trial or judicial review or countless other laws.

Unfortunately we are saddled with a host of laws that serve to enslave us that the judiciary in their wisdom has seen fit to allow to stand in their complicity with the federal governments drive to render the Constitution null and void.

 

[Gunnerpalace]

922o could quite possibly be the WORST law ever in the history of the United States (income tax,NFA,GCA can all be complained about later) it was passed ILLEGALY (font intended) and is completely unconstitutional, the NRA screw things up with that (Stuff happens) but that is beside the point, the point is I will be the happiest person of the year when it goes down, I find myself having to explain the subtle nuances of FA ownerships with everybody I meet, when I get to 922o the response I get is "boy that's a stupid law!".

The matter of fact is this law bug's me, rant over.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

Is it too much of a stretch to hope for (after a positive Heller outcome) challenging the Hughes amendment after someone tries to register a post-86 or maybe a war trophy bring-back? I think contributions alone could build a multi-million dollar legal dream team. Some NFA owners have deep pockets. I know I'd contribute as much as I could afford (I can't afford that stuff unless the registry reopened). Is the time right to make a full legal assault to try to recover those rights?

 

[Gunnerpalace]

Well, we need a good ruling from Heller and that has not happened yet, that and SCOTUS could say all laws are unconstitutional except for that

Anywho, this topic has come up and I know of at least 4 people 2 THR's and 2 of their friends including a LEO (that should help having 1 on our side).

WARNING.
I must include that when 922o gets TKO'd everyone (LEOS and civvies as they go in the same bin) can expect form 4 wait of AT LEAST 1 year due to (checking active members) 320 THR's who will get Glock 18's (I'm getting a minigun) the form 4's currently in the "dead letter" bin, and the 10000 others who want Glock 18's (everybody I talk to wants one).

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

Heck I'd be happy to start out with a little serialized hunk of metal that goes in my AR's lower. I'm sure the flood of F4s would make a Disneyland line look like the autobahn.

 

[Bubbles]

Heck I'd be happy to start out with a little serialized hunk of metal that goes in my AR's lower. I'm sure the flood of F4s would make a Disneyland line look like the autobahn.

Not to nitpick, but if you're talking about new NFA toys then they'll be on Form 1, not Form 4. Otherwise everything you said is spot on!

 

[Deavis]

Form 1 for those who make their own, Form 4s for all that transfer arms. Plenty of Form 4s would be filed as the manufacturing base simply has to shift over to civillian sales. Plenty of people with $$$ don't want to break out a drill press to mess with their $3k tacticool AR

SOTs would make a killing on the transfer fees.

 

[Brett Bellmore]

The Senate passed the final S.49 on April 10, 1986 by voice vote...

And some people think I'm a bit loony on the subject of voice votes. The truth is, it's possible, even likely, that the bill didn't pass the Senate at all, in any constitutional sense, for lack of a quorum. We'll never know, which is most of the point of not having a roll call.

 

[Crunker1337]

"Is it too much of a stretch to hope for (after a positive Heller outcome) challenging the Hughes amendment after someone tries to register a post-86 or maybe a war trophy bring-back? I think contributions alone could build a multi-million dollar legal dream team. Some NFA owners have deep pockets. I know I'd contribute as much as I could afford (I can't afford that stuff unless the registry reopened). Is the time right to make a full legal assault to try to recover those rights?"

Aha. Now we have a problem.
You see, since civilians can only buy and sell pre-86 machineguns, (constant supply, much more demand=much more price), people who have pre-86 machienguns are sitting on high-value weaponry. If this law was repealed, the weapons would be next to valueless, and it's way too much to hope that the gov't will pick up the bill (though it should).
Now, the majority of pre-86 machinegun owners would support a repeal of the FOPA as they think that freedom comes first. However, the ones with large investments in pre86 MGs... think from their perspective. It's not an easy issue.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

However, the ones with large investments in pre86 MGs... think from their perspective. It's not an easy issue.

I see what you are saying, but on all the MG forums and discussions I've seen with MG owners chiming in, all of them fully supported repealing the '86 clause. Yes somebody with a $14,000 M-16 would now have a $900 M-16, but the fact that you could buy just about anything you wanted for the same price as a semi-auto outweighs the loss of the initial purchases. The vast majority of owners I've heard from don't treat them as investments (expecting a return), they treat them as fun toys, like a hot-rod. The .gov could outlaw form 4 transfers with the stroke of a pen and their collection would be worth zilch.

MGs have been a good investment, but they are a very risky one, and if they were in it for the cash, it's even more risky too blaze through cases of ammo like they do where one kb could destroy an irreplacable part. It seems the ones who buy them as safe queens and investments are not though of very highly, like the guys who buy high-dollar classic musclecars and never drive them.

I wouldn't mind losing money if it opened up the options of what I could get. I'd love losing a couple zeros off the value on my house if I could buy more houses for $10k each (poor example because you can't shoot with a house, but same idea).

It's not just the ideals of freedom, it's the fact that you can vastly expand your collection of fun squirt guns you've always wanted but couldn't afford.
That's my take on it and the vibe I've gotten from current MG owners. Those of you who own them and are reading this, what's your position?

 

[Gunnerpalace]

Nope, they would still be worth 14,000 does anyone remember this : "pre 94's" at gun dealers, they (dealers) will spin it as a collector's item (seared M-16's, and those garbage M-11 or so everybody says). And all those M1928's will still be worth a mint.

 

[Wes Janson]

That's just it: a MAC-10 might drop down to $500, but that pristine-condition FG-42 is still going to command insane prices due to the rarity of the item itself.

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

Guns that aren't made anymore will always keep value (provided legal transfer is ok). Thompsons, BARs, MG42s, Sterlings, original Stens, etc. The point is to allow post 86 guns to the market like it should be. If for some odd reason someone wanted a pre-'86 M16 for $14k (and there's no telling that there wouldn't be a market for such) so be it. I'd rather have one hot off the line for $1k. I almost considered buying a $80 factory glock 19 mag or two during the Clinton bans. I instead wasted $19 on a 15rd pro mag that had a follower that loved to stick Thankfully those days are over and hopefully someday we'll be able to say "I almost paid $12,000 for a RDIAS! Can you believe that?"

 

[ctdonath]

There is no ban on manufacturing full auto weapons. There's only a ban on registering them with the BATFE.

TOTALLY WRONG.

922(o) expressly forbids civilian possession of MGs made after 1986. Registration only is relevant if the item was registered prior to 1986. Refusal to register is a bureaucratic directive, not law.

The BATFE could accept registrations on new (to wit: post-1986) MGs, but they would still be illegal (kinda like the laws requiring pot be accompanied by a tax stamp - though the pot is still contraband).

 

[TexasRifleman]

However, the ones with large investments in pre86 MGs... think from their perspective. It's not an easy issue.

My NFA stuff is quite valuable, I'd give all that value up in a moment to have more, that kind of talk really doesn't turn out to be true.

It's a very easy issue.

And frankly there are not enough NFA owners out there, with enough political clout, to stop the opening of the NFA registry anyway.

 

[DiN_BLiX]

The BATFE could accept registrations on new (to wit: post-1986) MGs, but they would still be illegal (kinda like the laws requiring pot be accompanied by a tax stamp - though the pot is still contraband).

LOL. WHat do you call a room full of well dressed drunkin fornacating fools?


congress.