The Hughes Amendment, still blatantly unconstitutional. With more BS!

[Abacab]

http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=1051358&page=1



I already knew about the bogus voice vote and the sleazy inclusion of the ban, but never in this kind of detail.

 

[Atlasarmory]

 

[hvymax]

Welcome to the workers paridise. 1984 was a joke compared to what these domestic enemies will stop at nothing to enforce. Next it will be anything capable of launching a projectile.

 

[Inigoes]

The inclusion of the Hughes Amendment in FOPA may constitute a Fifth Amendment violation.

As debate for FOPA was in its final stages, Rep. William J. Hughes (D-N.J.) proposed an amendment (House Amendment 777 to H.R. 4332) [4] to ban the civilian ownership or transfer of any fully-automatic weapon which was not registered by May 19, 1986. However, any such weapon manufactured and registered before the May 19 cutoff could still be legally owned and transferred by civilians.

Controversy exists regarding the validity of the amendment's inclusion into FOPA. The vote to include the amendment took place in the morning. Seventeen members of the House were not present for the first vote. Despite an apparent defeat of the amendment by voice vote, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), at the time presiding over the proceedings, declared the amendment approved despite the record clearly indicating otherwise. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were: ayes 124, noes 298, not voting 12. [5] The Hughes Amendment regarding the banning of machine guns, which was the second vote, was defeated in Record Vote No: 74. The bill, H.R. 4332, as a whole passed in Record Vote No: 75. Nevertheless, the Senate, in Senate Bill 49, adopted H.R. 4332 as an amendment to the final bill, which improperly included the defeated Hughes Amendment. It was subsequently passed and signed on May 19, 1986 by President Reagan to become Public Law No 99-308, Firearms Owners' Protection Act. The inclusion of the Hughes Amendment was a clear Fifth Amendment violation. Hughes and Rangel were longtime "gun control" supporters.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act

 

[Abacab]

Did you read the transcript? They defeated the amendment by 298 or so to 128. The Chair (Rangel) allowed it to be stuck in there despite the fact it obviously failed by voice and recorded vote.

 

[Abacab]

The inclusion of the Hughes Amendment in FOPA may constitute a Fifth Amendment violation.

As debate for FOPA was in its final stages, Rep. William J. Hughes (D-N.J.) proposed an amendment (House Amendment 777 to H.R. 4332) [4] to ban the civilian ownership or transfer of any fully-automatic weapon which was not registered by May 19, 1986. However, any such weapon manufactured and registered before the May 19 cutoff could still be legally owned and transferred by civilians.

Controversy exists regarding the validity of the amendment's inclusion into FOPA. The vote to include the amendment took place in the morning. Seventeen members of the House were not present for the first vote. Despite an apparent defeat of the amendment by voice vote, Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), at the time presiding over the proceedings, declared the amendment approved despite the record clearly indicating otherwise. The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were: ayes 124, noes 298, not voting 12. [5] The Hughes Amendment regarding the banning of machine guns, which was the second vote, was defeated in Record Vote No: 74. The bill, H.R. 4332, as a whole passed in Record Vote No: 75. Nevertheless, the Senate, in Senate Bill 49, adopted H.R. 4332 as an amendment to the final bill, which improperly included the defeated Hughes Amendment. It was subsequently passed and signed on May 19, 1986 by President Reagan to become Public Law No 99-308, Firearms Owners' Protection Act. The inclusion of the Hughes Amendment was a clear Fifth Amendment violation. Hughes and Rangel were longtime "gun control" supporters.[6]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act

On what grounds?

 

[mudskipper]

Well, maybe my M60-E4 is a little bit closer to reality today than it was yesterday...

 

[bean93x]

so what does this mean? theres a chance of new machine guns being available to the civilian buyer?

 

[Markp]

Keep dreaming.... justice goes to the highest bidder. Believe me, no one would love to believe that this could be reversed, but I don't think it will happen in my lifetime.

Mark

 

[alucard0822]

I always thought the Hughes ammendment would be one of the easiest things to get overturned, by a court case, or a conservative majority. I wrote countless letters when the Republicans controlled congress, but to no avail. I guess like most things, it will take a challenge, possibly all the way to SCOTUS to wipe it out. It was illegally passed and is unconstitutional, but that seems to be the norm, especially lately.

 

[Drmsparks]

I always thought the Hughes ammendment would be one of the easiest things to get overturned, by a court case, or a conservative majority. I wrote countless letters when the Republicans controlled congress, but to no avail. I guess like most things, it will take a challenge, possibly all the way to SCOTUS to wipe it out. It was illegally passed and is unconstitutional, but that seems to be the norm, especially lately.

The question that goes begging is why it hasn't been overturned (and since this was 1986 the "especially lately" is kinda irrelevant).

I strongly suspect the main opposition within the gun community comes from Machine gun collectors and the NRA. You would destroy their investment and deprive the NRA of a fundraising tool. This is the same reason (fundraising/scare tactics) that the NRA actively works against local gun rights groups on many issues (and why they fought heller and Mcdonald until it became clear those cases would go on without them). Changing this attitude is why I became an NRA member (you got to be in it to complain).

 

[bean93x]

anyone got some spare change and evidence laying around so we can persue with a lawsuit?

 

[Patrick]

There is a serious misunderstanding about what you are reading.

Amendments to a bill are just that: a part of the process. The transcript you are referencing is procedural in nature - it "proves" nothing more than the fact that the bill was going to contain what it does regardless of the procedure used to create it. No law is decided or made by amendment. Laws are made by voting on the bill after the amendments are attached.

The Hughes Amendment withstands legal scrutiny because no law was made during the transcript you reference. True...it became part of the law, but technically that occurred after FOPA was voted on by the chamber and signed by the president. It does not matter whether the content of the bill came about by real consensus or Magic Eight Ball - the final product was voted on in two chambers legitimately and signed by Reagan.

If the chambers did not want it passed, they could have voted it down. They had two chances - once for the initial bill and once again for the final conference-amended version of the bill. That's four votes. If the President did not want it law, he could have registered a veto that the chambers would then have to override. None of this happened. Two chambers and one president agreed on FOPA in clear and convincing terms.

Republicans and "Conservatives" voted for FOPA. Do you know their names? Do you blindly accept that Republicans won't sell your rights for something else they desire? If so, you are a fool.

We stand alone with 2A. Just as the Founder envisioned it.

 

[Biggfoot44]

The vast majority of gun owners aka gun owning voters had no intrest in full autos. They saw throwing machinegunners out of the sleigh as a small trade off for the rest of advantages of the FOPA , and figured after the years of effort to get it, that it was as good as they could get.

 

[Abacab]

There is a serious misunderstanding about what you are reading.

Amendments to a bill are just that: a part of the process. The transcript you are referencing is procedural in nature - it "proves" nothing more than the fact that the bill was going to contain what it does regardless of the procedure used to create it. No law is decided or made by amendment. Laws are made by voting on the bill after the amendments are attached.

The Hughes Amendment withstands legal scrutiny because no law was made during the transcript you reference. True...it became part of the law, but technically that occurred after FOPA was voted on by the chamber and signed by the president. It does not matter whether the content of the bill came about by real consensus or Magic Eight Ball - the final product was voted on in two chambers legitimately and signed by Reagan.

If the chambers did not want it passed, they could have voted it down. They had two chances - once for the initial bill and once again for the final conference-amended version of the bill. That's four votes. If the President did not want it law, he could have registered a veto that the chambers would then have to override. None of this happened. Two chambers and one president agreed on FOPA in clear and convincing terms.

Republicans and "Conservatives" voted for FOPA. Do you know their names? Do you blindly accept that Republicans won't sell your rights for something else they desire? If so, you are a fool.

We stand alone with 2A. Just as the Founder envisioned it.

I never suggested there was a basis for throwing out Hughes's amendment on a procedural ground. The idea that I am engaging in a "serious misunderstanding" of the transcript is fallacious. All I contended was that it presented further proof, in my mind, of how sleazy the whole process was in 1986. It also reinforced the absurd fact that the Speaker can simply 'deem' whatever he or she wants to have passed by voice vote regardless of what the actual voice vote may have been.

Please, do not insult my intelligence by suggesting I am incapable of reading what I posted. I am well aware the United States Supreme Court has said the Congress can make up whatever procedural rules it wants to. The grounds for challenging Hughes rests in the unconstitutional abuse of the commerce clause (the tax stamp NFA scheme) along with a 2nd Amendment argument. However, I am not getting my hopes up. Hence why I put down 3300 for a SWD M-11 earlier this year.

 

[hvymax]

Constitution!!! What Constitution? Oh you mean White House toilet paper.

 

[Abacab]

The vast majority of gun owners aka gun owning voters had no intrest in full autos. They saw throwing machinegunners out of the sleigh as a small trade off for the rest of advantages of the FOPA , and figured after the years of effort to get it, that it was as good as they could get.

From what I've read and gathered, this is my belief as well. The NRA (Negotiating your Rights Away) threw machine guns under the bus for FOPA. While I may be able to buy ammunition across state lines and some other niceties, I'd much rather have new machine guns.

Nevermind the fact FOPA has been a failure insofar as interstate transport goes. People get prosecuted all the time in loon states like NJ, NY and MA for 'illegal' transport.

 

[Patrick]

I never suggested there was a basis for throwing out Hughes's amendment on a procedural ground. The idea that I am engaging in a "serious misunderstanding" of the transcript is fallacious. All I contended was that it presented further proof, in my mind, of how sleazy the whole process was in 1986. It also reinforced the absurd fact that the Speaker can simply 'deem' whatever he or she wants to have passed by voice vote regardless of what the actual voice vote may have been.

Please, do not insult my intelligence by suggesting I am incapable of reading what I posted. I am well aware the United States Supreme Court has said the Congress can make up whatever procedural rules it wants to. The grounds for challenging Hughes rests in the unconstitutional abuse of the commerce clause (the tax stamp NFA scheme) along with a 2nd Amendment argument. However, I am not getting my hopes up. Hence why I put down 3300 for a SWD M-11 earlier this year.

I wouldn't insult your intelligence. There were numerous threads here talking about the "illegality" of the vote based on this transcript, not including the same chat on ARFCOM. The process is really confusing...so even if you did not completely understand it I would in no way suggest it was a matter of intelligence. More like a matter of having better things to worry about.

If you took offense, I certainly did not intend it and will apologize.

As for FOPA, it is a bunch of BS. I wish some of our representatives would have the balls to take it on. If not, we will need to turn to the courts. We will hopefully have some ammunition in our belt in the next year or so.

I am considering an RDIAS or an FA lower myself.

 

[Abacab]

I wouldn't insult your intelligence. There were numerous threads here talking about the "illegality" of the vote based on this transcript, not including the same chat on ARFCOM. The process is really confusing...so even if you did not completely understand it I would in no way suggest it was a matter of intelligence. More like a matter of having better things to worry about.

If you took offense, I certainly did not intend it and will apologize.

As for FOPA, it is a bunch of BS. I wish some of our representatives would have the balls to take it on. If not, we will need to turn to the courts. We will hopefully have some ammunition in our belt in the next year or so.

I am considering an RDIAS or an FA lower myself.

No worries. Sorry for getting pissy. Every time I read that transcript my blood pressure increases by a factor of 5. The transcript includes references to 'plastic guns' (really? I've always wanted one after watching Die Hard 2 as a kid. Strangely, they don't exist), 'teflon coated bullets' that pierce body armor (doesn't teflon act a protectant/sealant? NOT an accelerant that boosts piercing ability?), and suggestions that no 'reasonable' gun owner wants a 'silencer.' The same congressman states that 'silencers' are for 'contract killings.'

It's worse than the Bradys today - or Carolyn McCarthy saying a barrel shroud is a 'shoulder mounted thing that goes up.'

Calming myself again.

The other transcript I got to read part of once was in the early going of FOPA debate, in committee. The ATF specifically stated the machine guns were 'not of concern' and that their use in crime was next to nil.

 

[Patrick]

No worries. You apologize, I apologize.

Either way, I claim you owe me a few minutes with whatever MG toy you get someday. I'll host at my place -- got a 65 yd pistol range and should have an almost-200 yard rifle one up this summer.