Hughes Amendment NOT legally passed, Video evidence enclosed

[Razgriz]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6Mx2UcSEvQ
Skip to 6:48 to see the vote.

I don't know how the forum feels about full-auto's, personally I'm lukewarm to them (mostly due to the requirements to own one), regardless, I felt that this needed to be shared with the gun community at large.

[RoyGBiv]

Passed by voice vote at 8:20

Rangel sounds like Vader.

[i8godzilla]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Ow ... ection_Act" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
...Recorded Vote 74 was the controversial Hughes Amendment that called for the banning of machine guns. On page 20 of the Congressional Transcript cited to herein, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), at the time presiding as Chairman over the proceedings, claimed that the "amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed to." However, after the voice vote on the Hughes Amendment, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) ignored a plea to take a recorded vote, and moved on to Recorded Vote 74 where the Hughes Amendment was passed. The bill, H.R. 4332, as a whole passed in Record Vote No: 75 on a motion to recommit.

I am guessing that if it really was not passed there would have been numerous lawsuits in the last few decades.

Of course, there is still some that claim that the 16th Amendment was not correctly ratified. But that's for another thread.

[Razgriz]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Ow ... ection_Act" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
...Recorded Vote 74 was the controversial Hughes Amendment that called for the banning of machine guns. On page 20 of the Congressional Transcript cited to herein, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), at the time presiding as Chairman over the proceedings, claimed that the "amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended, was agreed to." However, after the voice vote on the Hughes Amendment, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.) ignored a plea to take a recorded vote, and moved on to Recorded Vote 74 where the Hughes Amendment was passed. The bill, H.R. 4332, as a whole passed in Record Vote No: 75 on a motion to recommit.

I am guessing that if it really was not passed there would have been numerous lawsuits in the last few decades.

Rock Island Armory got caught back in the late 80's manufacturing auto's, I believe it was the 10th district that said that the only reason why the NFA could exist was it was a tax collection, and not a registry, and RIA was found not-guilty. Also, after a recorded vote, you cannot re-vote an amendment, so even if it passed then, it was still illegal.

[juggernaut]

This shows again that Rangel being crooked is not a recent thing. However, realistically, if they don't care about the Hughes Atrocity blatantly violating the 2nd amendment, and they don't care about it blatantly violating the 10th amendment, they're not going to care about a procedural challenge.

[Razgriz]

I was thinking, maybe since we have control of the house, if the next time democrats want something passed, that we could slip something in that repeals Hughes' amendment. At least it would be something.

[The Annoyed Man]

Can somebody please summarize what's going on here? I don't understand what this is about, and what exactly Rangel did/didn't do.

Thanks.

[rm9792]

Youre not the only one......

[Razgriz]

Can somebody please summarize what's going on here? I don't understand what this is about, and what exactly Rangel did/didn't do.

Thanks.

A vote was called on the Hughes Amendment, then a recorded vote was requested, and the Hughes amendment was defeated, another vote was called (illegal) and "passed", while attempts at a recorded vote were ignored, then the final bill was voted on, and passed.

The Hughes Amendment legally could not have been called for a second vote, because it had been defeated, with a recorded vote. The Amendment was attached anyway, and the bill was passed, meaning that the Hughes amendment was made law with less than a majority vote.

[The Annoyed Man]

Can somebody please summarize what's going on here? I don't understand what this is about, and what exactly Rangel did/didn't do.

Thanks.

A vote was called on the Hughes Amendment, then a recorded vote was requested, and the Hughes amendment was defeated, another vote was called (illegal) and "passed", while attempts at a recorded vote were ignored, then the final bill was voted on, and passed.

The Hughes Amendment legally could not have been called for a second vote, because it had been defeated, with a recorded vote. The Amendment was attached anyway, and the bill was passed, meaning that the Hughes amendment was made law with less than a majority vote.

Thank you. Then I looked up the Hughes Amendment, because I'd never heard of it before. I see that it passed and was signed into law on May 19, 1986 - during Ronald Reagan's second term, which explains why Rangel looks like he's been dying his hair in that video.

I'm just curious, what brings that to attention at this time?

[Razgriz]

Can somebody please summarize what's going on here? I don't understand what this is about, and what exactly Rangel did/didn't do.

Thanks.

A vote was called on the Hughes Amendment, then a recorded vote was requested, and the Hughes amendment was defeated, another vote was called (illegal) and "passed", while attempts at a recorded vote were ignored, then the final bill was voted on, and passed.

The Hughes Amendment legally could not have been called for a second vote, because it had been defeated, with a recorded vote. The Amendment was attached anyway, and the bill was passed, meaning that the Hughes amendment was made law with less than a majority vote.

Thank you. Then I looked up the Hughes Amendment, because I'd never heard of it before. I see that it passed and was signed into law on May 19, 1986 - during Ronald Reagan's second term, which explains why Rangel looks like he's been dying his hair in that video.

I'm just curious, what brings that to attention at this time?

Someone found this video, and put it on the /k/ boards, back in '08 some guys were going to challenge the ATF for not letting them register full-auto's that they we're going to make, using the video as evidence that the amendment was not valid, but they could not find the video. Now some guys from (cal-guns I think) are trying to get the records from the library of Congress, because if the video is the same, then it does not match with the written records, and someone could get into alot of trouble.

I'm posting from second-hand knowledge, but it seems to be legit.

[ScottDLS]

As a NFA collector who owns some "pre-1986" guns, I'm very disappointed that this amendment was attached to the 1986 FOPA. I was aware of the FOPA and the debate surrounding it in 1986. While it generally improved things for gun owners a lot, the the gun control types were in full form. You had the shooting of Ronald Reagan (and James Brady)...1981 and "roaring '80's" cocaine culture. So they got this ban on newly manufactured full-autos in the bill.

Big time (stink)!

So now 25 years later...we've got this newly discovered internet information that it never happened legally!!! Yaaaay!! I'm going to stop paying my income taxes, cuz I "know" the 16th amendment was never legally passed!

The Congress jointly creates their procedural rules for their conduct of the business/law of the United States. For 230 years the Supreme Court has given them wide latitude to do so as allowed by the Constitution. If an "act" is deemed passed by voice vote, not protested by a Member or Senator in a timely manner, and not challenged for 25 years... Well let's just file suit!

If the act itself deemed unconstitutional...fine. But it's why you can buy ammo by mail, drive through NYC with a rifle locked in your trunk on the way to PA, buy a rifle form a FFL in another state, protects FFL's from harassment, etc. Who cares...!

We'll now immediately be able to buy newly manufactured full-autos...after filling out the "Form 4" and having our local sheriff sign off, and paying the $200 transfer tax, and waiting 6 months for the NFA branch in WV to move paper from slot "A" to slot "B".




Please excuse me while I put on my tin-foil (well actually "aluminum" foil) hat...

[Razgriz]

As a NFA collector who owns some "pre-1986" guns, I'm very disappointed that this amendment was attached to the 1986 FOPA. I was aware of the FOPA and the debate surrounding it in 1986. While it generally improved things for gun owners a lot, the the gun control types were in full form. You had the shooting of Ronald Reagan (and James Brady)...1981 and "roaring '80's" cocaine culture. So they got this ban on newly manufactured full-autos in the bill.

Big time (stink)!

So now 25 years later...we've got this newly discovered internet information that it never happened legally!!! Yaaaay!! I'm going to stop paying my income taxes, cuz I "know" the 16th amendment was never legally passed!

The Congress jointly creates their procedural rules for their conduct of the business/law of the United States. For 230 years the Supreme Court has given them wide latitude to do so as allowed by the Constitution. If an "act" is deemed passed by voice vote, not protested by a Member or Senator in a timely manner, and not challenged for 25 years... Well let's just file suit!

If the act itself deemed unconstitutional...fine. But it's why you can buy ammo by mail, drive through NYC with a rifle locked in your trunk on the way to PA, buy a rifle form a FFL in another state, protects FFL's from harassment, etc. Who cares...!

We'll now immediately be able to buy newly manufactured full-autos...after filling out the "Form 4" and having our local sheriff sign off, and paying the $200 transfer tax, and waiting 6 months for the NFA branch in WV to move paper from slot "A" to slot "B".




Please excuse me while I put on my tin-foil (well actually "aluminum" foil) hat...

The only thing not kosher is the Hughes amendment, it wasn't passed, all that's left is to sue for a reopening of the FA stamp acceptance, this video proves pretty much that rules were not followed, and with a decent lawyer, this could very well over turn the Hughes amendment, while keeping the rest of the FOPA intact since the passing of that bill was legit (seeing how the only reason the Hughes amendment was an attempt to get the FOPA supporters to vote against it, and the Hughes amendment was the only funny business about the bill in the first place).

But just to be on the safe side, wait until we have a gun-friendly president in charge, and then sue, that way if the 86 FOPA is struck down along with the Hughes amendment (which it shouldn't) then just pass a new FOPA - Hughes. Because I do agree that the FA portion isn't as important as the rest of what the FOPA did, So just wait for a time when one exactly like the previous one can be passed into law with ease, that way, the FOPA remains in one state or another, and the Hughes amendment gets struck down, it's a win-win.