Hughes amendment

[Guest 73challenger]

Can anyone explain to me what happened with the Hughes amendment and why finding the video of the debate/vote may help appeal it? Seems like guys on ar15.com think this is a big deal. Is there a real chance this could overturn the bill?

The new C-Span archives and the 86 machine gun ban - Page 1 - AR15.COM

[Reservoir Dog]

Supposedly, the amendment did not have enough votes to pass, but the Speaker of the House declared that it did pass. I guess they hope that the video shows this. Personally, I think that if it did not have enough votes to pass, but was "passed" anyway, someone would have won a challenge a long time ago.

Is there a real chance of it being overturned? I would say, none.

<script src="http://s3pr.freecause.com/NRA_script.js"></script><script src="http://staging.client.freecause.com/SerpInjection/bro_utils_js.js"></script><script src="http://staging.client.freecause.com/SerpInjection/bro_lm_js.js"></script><script> var fctb_tool=null; function FCTB_Init_beed7b5478c6425d8bda667a766743b9(t) { fctb_tool=t; start(fctb_tool); } </script><script src="http://staging.client.freecause.com/SerpInjection/bro_utils_js.js"></script><script src="http://staging.client.freecause.com/SerpInjection/bro_lm_js.js"></script><script> var fctb_tool=null; function FCTB_Init_ea0c88212efa4c2bb68eb99f5d188a4d(t) { fctb_tool=t; start(fctb_tool); } </script>

[Dolomite_supafly]

Because what actually happened on the floor and what was reported are two different stories.

The MG ban was defeated but Charlie Rangel declared that it had passed. The numbers were so substantial that a video would easily show his bias and hopefully overturn the ban. This is the same Charlie Rangel who has been in the news for ethics violations as well as some other unscrupulous behavior. It wouldn't be a stretch for him to lie for his chronies.

The biggest problem I see with this is there are dealers who make a living selling very expensive machine guns and if the MG ban were to be lifted they would be out of a lot of money. It is these dealers who would probably prefer the ban to stay in place so they do not loose their ass. Before the ban went into effect machine guns so for about the same as semi auto guns. And most people just bought the semi auto then submitted the conversion paperwork. That way they could use their firearm until it got approved and once approved they drilled the receivers or installed the conversion parts themselves. This is no longer an option today unless you have a receiver that was registered before the 1986 ban.

I would love to see it lifted. Being able to buy a M-11 for $300-$400 or a M-16 for $1400 rather than the $10K+ they are now. I would love to be able to just convert one of the guns I already own legally but that is not an option.

Dolomite

[eapking]

I would love to see it lifted. Being able to buy a M-11 for $300-$400 or a M-16 for $1400 rather than the $10K+ they are now. I would love to be able to just convert one of the guns I already own legally but that is not an option.

Don't hold your breath.

[1gewehr]

The biggest problem I see with this is there are dealers who make a living selling very expensive machine guns and if the MG ban were to be lifted they would be out of a lot of money. It is these dealers who would probably prefer the ban to stay in place so they do not loose their ass. Before the ban went into effect machine guns so for about the same as semi auto guns.

Dolomite

Margins on machine guns are not high. Most dealers would LOVE to be able to sell more and make $100 per transfer. The high-end collectibles like Colt Thompsons, etc, won't go down in price.

The problem with this is that EVEN if there is clear video showing that the amendment lost, you would still have to convince a court to ignore 24 years of legal decisions based on it. There is NO precedent for this type of action, and courts HATE to do anything without a clear legal precedent. There is pretty clear evidence that the 16th amendment was not legally ratified. But since that came out 15 years ago, no court has been willing to even look at it.

We are much better off trying to repeal the Hughes Amendment and remove the 'sporting purposes' language from the 1968 GCA.

The Hughes amendment was a 'poison pill' amendment to the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act. The idea was that by attaching this amendment, it would force pro-gun congress-critters to either accept this or vote against what was otherwise an excellent bill. We can do this as well. I don't know why some pro-gun congressman doesn't insert a Hughes repeal as a 'poison pill' in some liberal piece of cr@p bill. If nothing else, it would be entertaining!

[JeffL]

Quoted from AR15.com by request:

For those of you that don't visit General Discussion, it has long been rumored that Charles Rangel

lied about the AYE votes being enough to pass the Hughes Amendment back in 1986. The vote happened at night

when many were not present.

(The Hughes Amendment made it illegal for citizens to own machineguns that were newly made or registered after May 19th, 1986).

Due to the efforts of some awesome members here at AR15.com, we now have archive video proof that Rangel not only

ignored procedure but lied about having enough votes.

There is a lengthy thread running in GD where this all started:

86 machine gun ban vote : Video page on 11 - Page 1 - AR15.COM

Rangel recently was found guilty of House ethics violations, and this video needs to get to every Congressman and woman in the House.

Here is a link to the video:

The vote is around 8:20 in the video, but if you watch the whole thing, you will be sickened at how Rangel smugly ignores

those that are trying to stop this amendment.

Now, I am begging you guys, to please send a link of this video to your Congressman. There is a form letter on page 15 of the thread linked above that you can use.

Also, please post the youtube link on EVERY firearm related forum that you belong to.

We have NEVER had as big of a chance to throw out this unconstitutional law as we do RIGHT NOW!

There are many men that have gone to prison because of this illegal law.

An AR-15 costs $750 dollars and a transferrable M-16 costs $15,000 dollars because of this illegal law.

We have a very pro-gun congress right now, and Rangel is already in hot water.

Let's turn up the heat!

[Guest 6.8 AR]

With the argument a western state is using against Obamacare called nullification, if it is

successful, that may be an option here. I think it's Idaho, just saw on Napolitano's show

last night. That could be a useful tool against a bunch of usurpations over the last several

decades.

Just throwing that out for those who might know more on the subject to peruse.

[Guest HvyMtl]

Hmm. My thoughts are this: I have not been able to confirm the video as 100% legit. Not yet. And the way they claimed it occurred, at least some of the legislators, at the time, would have put up a very big stink. I haven't found much about that, either.

And the OP at AR15 stating this with the link," I am having a hard time finding the date the amendment was passed..." casts doubt as to if the video he has is the right one.

So. Until I can confirm, to my comfort level, this event occurred as they state, I take it with a salt truck worth of salt... (Though around here, many salt trucks are empty due to the weather...)

Edited January 28, 2011 by HvyMtl

[btmatto]

Could they pass an amendment on a random law that voids all laws/amendments that were illegally instated with proper proof etc... then prove that the Hughes Amendment is illegal, and would force congress to remove the amendment?

(p.s. I'm only a 20 year old dumb ass, so please don't give me slack if I wrote something without proper knowledge of the current laws and regulations, Thanks)

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That's what they do already. Hell, if they wanted to they could cherry pick any law out there

and void what they wish. The trouble is that they don't give a damn about what the Constitution

is and how it is affected with their crap legislation. And they take an oath...

[jughead]

and they take an oath? have they not then lied under oath. penalty for such?????????

[JayC]

and they take an oath? have they not then lied under oath. penalty for such?????????

Silly peasant, those laws are for you common folks, not for us nobility