Posted on 01/25/2011 7:47:16 AM PST by BCR #226
For the last 24 years, rumors have persisted and variations based on memory have persisted concerning the passage of the Hughes Amendment (Machine gun ban) to the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act.
Several days ago, an associate of mine secured a copy of the audio/video of the committee hearings run by Charlie Rangel where this law was passed out to Congress. Rumor insisted that there were shenanigans concerning the passage of the Hughes Amendment but we never had the factual data to back it up. Now, we do. Critical excerpts from the video are now posted on youtube at this link... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6Mx2UcSEvQ
Roberts Rules of Conduct were ignored, a roll call vote was ignored, the Congressional Record was selectively "erased" and this has resulted in innocent people being jailed or worse yet, murdered by over zealous Federal Agents because of Charlie Rangel and his personal anti-gun agenda.
Whether you are pro-gun or not, the fact that an elected official would disregard adopted procedures to forward his personal agenda should anger every single person in this nation.
To put it bluntly, the Hughes Amendment never passed and is a bogus law. It must be striken from the books and restitution made to those who have lost their freedom and their Rights. I have no idea how to compensate those who have lost their lives because of Charlie Rangel. The damage done is so severe that this must be addressed by Congress.
Please take the time to review the video. Pass it along to your elected officials and explain that even though it's a somewhat controversial subject, the fact that an elected official would do what Charlie Rangel did is no less severe than had he murdered the people killed by law enforcement following what they thought was legitimate law.
Please let your elected officials know that this law must be struck from law immediately. I urge BATFE to begin conducting amnesties of the NFRTR on a constant basis until this matter is resolved. I also urge BATFE to cease all enforcement of this law as it did not pass.
I urge Congress to fix this problem and repeal the Hughes Amendment at the very minimum.
I urge everyone reading this to demand answers from your Senators and Congressmen. The rule of law is meaningless in this nation as long as this travesty remains untouched.
Ping.
You could have left it at that. The US is a banana republic.
Interesting....I fear we’re looking at an AWB part II with further restrictions of types of assault-weapons and magazine capacity. Sadly, a majority of repubs will go along with a ‘sensible’ gun law.
Word is Obama will make the case for it tonight. Two ways this will go, it won’t get past Boehner’s desk in which the dems will play this against the repubs in ‘12. Option 2 is that this will drive more opposition to Obama and dems in general as gun-control is really a political liability.
Might be a good time to pick up some high-capacity mags before the panic buying and pricing go up.
There is nothing in the Constitution that requires that Roberts Rules be followed in committee in order for a bill to be made into law. It only requires a majority vote in the house and senate, and presidential approval, or a 2/3 vote in both bodies to override a presidential veto.
You can try to argue that if Rangle didn't ramrod the bill through the committee it never would have made it to the house floor, but the Constitution states that each house will make their own rules. If it wasn't overruled at the time, there is nothing that the Supreme Court can do to find the law unconstitutional based on committee behavior.
ping
If it does, it's SHTF time.
Watch the video... Then you’ll see why there is a problem.
From PossumKing over at ARFCOM...
Dear Rep. XXXXX,
What would you do if you discovered that a law passed by Congress and signed by the President included an amendment that had actually been rejected by the House of Representatives? What would you do if the Congressional Record and the enacted law reflected the exact opposite of the archived video of Congressional debate and vote? Would you try to rectify the situation even if it is a law that you may like? As discussed below, there is such a law that includes an amendment that was specifically rejected by the House of Representatives. Although the amendment was flatly rejected, said amendment was still included in the final legislation. I want to know what you plan to do about this injustice.
On April 10, 1986, the House of Representatives voted to pass the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act (FOPA) Pub.L. 99-308, 100 Stat. 449, enacted May 19, 1986, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 921 et seq.
During debate, Rep. William Hughes presented an amendment that is now commonly known as the Hughes Amendment. The House voted down this amendment as seen in this archived video that has been posted to the internet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6Mx2UcSEvQ. Despite the fact that the House rejected this amendment, Rep. Charles Rangel claimed that it passed and included the amendment in the final version of the bill.
Below, I quote from the Congressional Record:
8. H.AMDT.777 to H.R.4332 An amendment to make it unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun except in the case of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date of enactment.
Sponsor: Rep Hughes, William J. [NJ-2] (introduced 4/10/1986) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 4/10/1986 House amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment Passed in Committee of the Whole by Voice Vote. (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d099:HR04332:).
As you can see, the Congressional Record, the enacted law, and the archived video do not agree. The Hughes Amendment was rejected. Do you think this is the type of representation that your constituents deserve?
Please contact me at your earliest convenience and inform me what you plan to do to correct this travesty. Your reputation and the reputations of your fellow Congress members are at stake.
Respectfully,
Pissed off constiuent
They said that this would be a good way to repeal the Hughes amendment is to add to a manufacturing or jobs bill, but a political hot potato and unlikely to pass unless the RATS are caught sleeping or a very unpopular compromise is found. Even though they might be for it, it will be a long road.
Tom Colburn jested that he contemplated adding an amendment to repeal the entire Chapter 4 of the 68 GCA in one of the 2000 page "bills" last year. At least he got us guns in National Parks.
I hope you’re right...
For your reading “pleasure”.
It needs to be fixed. People are being falsely imprisoned and/or killed because of just this one amendment to an otherwise good bill.
I believe the amendment passed on the house floor with a voice vote. That’s ridiculous for something as important as that. Someone should have called for a roll call on the floor. Get everyone’s vote on record.
Nothing to do now, but attempt to repeal this monstrosity. America’s first Freedom had a big article on the 86 bill in this past issue. All in all, even though the crappy Hughes amendment was in it, this was a good bill and freed up sellers and dealers from being arbitrarily harrassed by the feds. More importantly, it was the first victory for the 2nd amendment in a long battle back from too much progressivism.
Watch the video. The Yayes and Nays are quite clear. The Nays won it, Rangel called it for the Yayes, which then spawned loud calls for a recorded vote which were ignored with a smirk. The recorded committee vote was 2-1 against the amendment meaning it never should have been added to the FOPA for the final vote.
I understand what you’re saying. However, I don’t think we’re going to have a leg to stand on that it’s unconstitutional because of shennanigans in a committee. As another poster pointed out, the Constitution clearly states that each legislative chamber can set up it’s own rules. So each committee can do whatever it wants to pass an amendment out. However, I believe that the Hughes amendment still had to pass on the floor of the house before being added to the bill, correct?
IMO, the best way to attack the fully auto gun ban is not to relitigate it. But to repeal the dang thing and be done with it.
You are correct but what the other poster fails to point out is that should the agreed upon rules be violated, there are reprocussions that may be enacted. This is one of those instances.
It won’t be relitigated, there is an option under parlamentary rules that may suffice here. I don’t know the specifics but after discussing this with Congresspersons and staffers, it appears to be a viable solution.
I’m working on this now and it may take some time. But we have grounds.
sfl
Very true; that is also true when the whole House is sitting as a Committee - the House Rules (which the SC could rule on) are not in place for the duration. Once the Committee rises, then the House reverts to the House Rules.
I'm not sure you do - see Yo-Yo's #6 and my #21. We could be wrong, but I don't think so.
The problem you guys are missing with this is that parlamentary rules goes as follows...
A voice vote may be taken, if however a recorded vote is called afterward, the voice vote is nullified at the moment the roll call vote begins.
In this instance, the voice vote was resoundingly for the Nay’s. Rangel gaveled it for the Yea’s. A roll call vote was called for. When this vote took place, the voice vote was nullified. The roll call vote came strongly in favor against the amendment. Rangel dismissed the roll call vote and opted for the voice vote which violates the rules.
This is how the vote is officially recorded:
8. H.AMDT.777 to H.R.4332 An amendment to make it unlawful for any person to transfer or possess a machinegun except in the case of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the date of enactment.
Sponsor: Rep Hughes, William J. [NJ-2] (introduced 4/10/1986) Cosponsors (None)
Latest Major Action: 4/10/1986 House amendment agreed to. Status: Amendment Passed in Committee of the Whole by Voice Vote.
Now, we know for an absolute FACT that a roll call vote was taken. Why isn’t this in the minutes?
It doesn’t matter what rules they apply, the voice vote is invalid.
Oh I agree there is a problem, but the congress was sitting as a committee of the whole, not as congress, so committee rules prevail, and each body has final word on their own rules and enforcement thereof.
The proper place would be lodgign a complaint with the House Rules committee, but since the Dems controlled that as well...
Read post 24.
That's just it. It didn't. The voice vote clearly was incorrectly called and the parliamentary calls for a recorded vote were ignored. This violates the Houses own rules on adding Amendments.
Further, watch the video when the final bill comes to the floor. Calls for a reading of which amendments were included were again ignored and the vote pushed through before an answer could be ascertained.
This isn't just shennanigans when people have died because of this provision.
If USC 18, 922(o) is repealed, then any convictions under that provision would be subject to a retrial. If the law you are accused of breaking doesn’t exist any more, kinda hard to keep you locked up for it.
after a couple viewings tho, it was clear that he quickly 'moved forward' after the vote was made, nearly 3-1 to scrap it...
why didnt they insist on fixing it that day ???
I may borrow yer letter for delivery to my critters too...
Too bad humans just don't seem to be able to maintain the knack of living without government. We sure as heck don't have the knack of running a GOOD government.
I posted on Facebook and contacted a few folks who can help give it legs.
I posted on Facebook and contacted a few folks who can help give it legs.
I concur that it's certainly a possibility [websearch *Operation Gunwalker*] but concede that it's a possibility.
Accordingly: cwii list ping!
my lil circle prolly wont touch it with a 10 ft pole tho...
links are saved tho, so maybe i'll troll it till people get sick of it, as well as slammin my 'Reps' to give it some legs...
in our 'pass it to see whats in it' society i dont think itll go anywhere unfortunately...
Probably not; Google the "enrolled bill doctrine."
Doesn’t cost us much to keep trying. After all, one or two strategic wins can make a huge difference.
I have no idea what you mean by "Juris dictum." Are you referring to "jurisdiction"? If so, how is jurisdiction destructive to our Republic?
As for stare decisis, it gives a great deal of predictability to the legal landscape, which facilitates investment. No one would risk any money in any business enterprise if all the legal rules could change overnight.
Also known as "instructions to the jury". Not sure where I picked up the short form of the Latin from. These insure that a jury can only find one verdict, that which the judge wants.
For reference, see the recent case in New Jersey where a judge refused to allow the jury to see the text of the law to force a conviction.
It also precludes people from seeking standing if new evidence casts doubt on previous decisions. Heller going up against Miller type decisions for example. Not to mention revisiting Wickard V Filburn.
Thanks for the ping and good to see you here.
Stay Safe Archy!
Now David Codrea of Guns magazine and Examiner.com has picked up the story from this very thread!
I really hope this goes somewhere good. With all the other crap going on, it’d be nice to get an easy win for once.
Roger THAT!!!
You just helped me definitely make up my mind. I'm buying that Kel-tec PMR30 handun in 22WMR and getting maybe three mags for it. Each mag fits flush to the butt and holds 30 rounds of 22 Winchester Magnum Rimfire. Almost zero recoil and you can empty 30 rounds in just a second or so and be dead on target. And since I already own a ton of 22 magnum this is a "no brainer" for me.... I think I might take care of that this week, in fact.
Well if I were you I’d hold off, there’s no immediate risk of banning and you’ll pay a premium. I checked some sites yesterday and all the mags for my stuff were out of stock.
We have time but I suspect Obama will try to advance something later this year. It won’t go anywhere in the House or Senate for that matter but it will drive demand and prices up.
National Firearms Registry and Tranfer Record
NFRTR
Yeah, give me time to formulate my thoughts and I’ll respond better than I can at the moment.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.