Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

FOPA Hughes Amendment VOTE APRIL 10 1986 (Proof the 1986 machine gun ban failed to pass.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6Mx2UcSEvQ ^ | 1/25/2011 | Myself

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.


TOPICS: History; Miscellaneous; Reference; Society
KEYWORDS: ban; banglist; bill; congress; cwii; cwiiping; firearms; fraud; hughesamendment; machinegun; rangel; rat; shallnotbeinfringed
It took over 24 years to get access to this record. Many, many people have suffered because of the immoral and illegal acts of Charlie Rangel.

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.

1 posted on 01/25/2011 7:47:19 AM PST by BCR #226
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower; Travis McGee; Squantos; Eaker; humblegunner; ATLDiver

Ping.


2 posted on 01/25/2011 7:49:11 AM PST by FreedomPoster (Islam delenda est)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BCR #226
-- The rule of law is meaningless in this nation ... --

You could have left it at that. The US is a banana republic.

3 posted on 01/25/2011 7:54:47 AM PST by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BCR #226
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6Mx2UcSEvQ
4 posted on 01/25/2011 7:59:45 AM PST by philman_36 (Pride breakfasted with plenty, dined with poverty, and supped with infamy. Benjamin Franklin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: FreedomPoster

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.


5 posted on 01/25/2011 8:08:34 AM PST by ATLDiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: BCR #226
Shenanigans perpetrated in the committee room doesn't alter the fact that the full congress voted on the bill.

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.

6 posted on 01/25/2011 8:15:02 AM PST by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: BCR #226

ping


7 posted on 01/25/2011 8:15:29 AM PST by PubliusMM (RKBA; a matter of fact, not opinion. 01-20-2013: Change we can look forward to.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ATLDiver
Zero can make a case for it, it'll never make it through the House.

If it does, it's SHTF time.

8 posted on 01/25/2011 8:49:08 AM PST by Dead Corpse (III%. The last line in the sand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

Watch the video... Then you’ll see why there is a problem.


9 posted on 01/25/2011 8:53:28 AM PST by BCR #226 (07/02 SOT www.extremefirepower.com...The BS stops when the hammer drops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BCR #226

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


10 posted on 01/25/2011 8:58:22 AM PST by Dead Corpse (III%. The last line in the sand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: harpseal; TexasCowboy; nunya bidness; AAABEST; Travis McGee; Squantos; wku man; SLB; ...
More on the FOPA deception.

Click the Gadsden flag for pro-gun resources!

11 posted on 01/25/2011 9:00:58 AM PST by Joe Brower (Sheep have three speeds: "graze", "stampede" and "cower".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
John Boozman is a friend and my Senator. I have talked to him about 18 USC 922 (o) and he got me in touch with Tom Colburn's office.

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.

12 posted on 01/25/2011 9:12:13 AM PST by DCBryan1 (FORGET the lawyers...first kill the "journalists". (Die Ritter der Kokosnuss))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

I hope you’re right...


13 posted on 01/25/2011 9:24:37 AM PST by ATLDiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: mombonn; 2nd amendment mama; myboyz

For your reading “pleasure”.


14 posted on 01/25/2011 9:50:53 AM PST by basil (It's time to rid the country of "Gun Free Zones" aka "Killing Fields")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: ATLDiver
Heck, I hope it gets traction. We have known for a while that crap like this goes on. Having PROOF takes it out of the usual "tin foil" classification and puts it out there in bright lights for everyone to see.

It needs to be fixed. People are being falsely imprisoned and/or killed because of just this one amendment to an otherwise good bill.

15 posted on 01/25/2011 9:57:14 AM PST by Dead Corpse (III%. The last line in the sand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: BCR #226

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.


16 posted on 01/25/2011 10:02:27 AM PST by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden
I believe the amendment passed on the house floor with a voice vote.

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.

17 posted on 01/25/2011 10:14:06 AM PST by Dead Corpse (III%. The last line in the sand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

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.


18 posted on 01/25/2011 10:26:46 AM PST by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden

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.


19 posted on 01/25/2011 10:35:50 AM PST by BCR #226 (07/02 SOT www.extremefirepower.com...The BS stops when the hammer drops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: BCR #226

sfl


20 posted on 01/25/2011 10:37:51 AM PST by phockthis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo
... there is nothing that the Supreme Court can do to find the law unconstitutional based on committee behavior.

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.

21 posted on 01/25/2011 10:45:48 AM PST by brityank (The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: BCR #226; Old Teufel Hunden; Yo-Yo
But we have grounds.

I'm not sure you do - see Yo-Yo's #6 and my #21. We could be wrong, but I don't think so.

22 posted on 01/25/2011 10:50:33 AM PST by brityank (The more I learn about the Constitution, the more I realise this Government is UNconstitutional !!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: BCR #226
"I’m working on this now and it may take some time. But we have grounds."

So this could be overturned without a law being enacted? That would be awesome. As for people who have been hurt by this law, I don't think there will be any recourse for them, will there? That would be the tough part. If this happens, in celebration I will buy myself a fully auto AR-15. Just hope my gun club allows me to shoot it. As of right now, no weapons are allowed to be fired on fully auto. I've always suspected it was because they didn't want to deal with the hassle of having to make sure everyone who did it had a legal fully auto rifle...
23 posted on 01/25/2011 11:01:04 AM PST by Old Teufel Hunden
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: brityank

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.


24 posted on 01/25/2011 11:03:33 AM PST by BCR #226 (07/02 SOT www.extremefirepower.com...The BS stops when the hammer drops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: BCR #226
Watch the video... Then you’ll see why there is a problem.

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...

25 posted on 01/25/2011 11:07:07 AM PST by Yo-Yo (Is the /sarc tag really necessary?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Yo-Yo

Read post 24.


26 posted on 01/25/2011 11:10:38 AM PST by BCR #226 (07/02 SOT www.extremefirepower.com...The BS stops when the hammer drops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden
However, I believe that the Hughes amendment still had to pass on the floor of the house before being added to the bill, correct?

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.

27 posted on 01/25/2011 11:11:58 AM PST by Dead Corpse (III%. The last line in the sand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden

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.


28 posted on 01/25/2011 11:20:17 AM PST by Dead Corpse (III%. The last line in the sand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
the avg guy like myself had a lil trouble makin heads and tails of the shenanigan treason perpetrated by herr rangel...

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...

29 posted on 01/25/2011 11:26:45 AM PST by Gilbo_3 (Gov is not reason; not eloquent; its force.Like fire,a dangerous servant & master. George Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Gilbo_3
I stuck it up on my Facebook. A Canadian friend of mine thought it looked like mayhem and that Rangel really had a penchant for banging away with the gavel.

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.

30 posted on 01/25/2011 12:03:02 PM PST by Dead Corpse (III%. The last line in the sand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower

I posted on Facebook and contacted a few folks who can help give it legs.


31 posted on 01/25/2011 12:52:29 PM PST by ironwill (III - Molon Labe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower

I posted on Facebook and contacted a few folks who can help give it legs.


32 posted on 01/25/2011 12:52:43 PM PST by ironwill (III - Molon Labe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: ATLDiver; Eaker; afnamvet; AK2KX; Ancesthntr; An Old Man; ApesForEvolution; aragorn; archy; ...
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.

I concur that it's certainly a possibility [websearch *Operation Gunwalker*] but concede that it's a possibility.

Accordingly: cwii list ping!

33 posted on 01/25/2011 2:03:35 PM PST by archy (I'd give my right arm to be ambidextrous!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
YesSir, i facebooked it as well, along with a lil commentary on *what* it was that they were witnessing in history...

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...

34 posted on 01/25/2011 2:12:52 PM PST by Gilbo_3 (Gov is not reason; not eloquent; its force.Like fire,a dangerous servant & master. George Washington)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Old Teufel Hunden
So this could be overturned without a law being enacted? That would be awesome.

Probably not; Google the "enrolled bill doctrine."

35 posted on 01/25/2011 2:21:28 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
Along with stare decisis and juris dictum, practices that badly need to go away as they are destructive to our Republic.
36 posted on 01/25/2011 2:28:17 PM PST by Dead Corpse (III%. The last line in the sand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Gilbo_3

Doesn’t cost us much to keep trying. After all, one or two strategic wins can make a huge difference.


37 posted on 01/25/2011 2:29:12 PM PST by Dead Corpse (III%. The last line in the sand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
Along with stare decisis and juris dictum, practices that badly need to go away as they are destructive to our Republic.

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.

38 posted on 01/25/2011 2:33:20 PM PST by Lurking Libertarian (Non sub homine, sed sub Deo et lege)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
Judicia sunt tanquam juris dicta

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.

39 posted on 01/25/2011 2:39:08 PM PST by Dead Corpse (III%. The last line in the sand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Lurking Libertarian
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.

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.

40 posted on 01/25/2011 2:41:27 PM PST by Dead Corpse (III%. The last line in the sand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: archy

Thanks for the ping and good to see you here.

Stay Safe Archy!


41 posted on 01/25/2011 3:47:16 PM PST by MileHi ( "It's coming down to patriots vs the politicians." - ovrtaxt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: archy

Now David Codrea of Guns magazine and Examiner.com has picked up the story from this very thread!

See: http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-national/was-hughes-amendment-illegally-passed?CID=examiner_alerts_article


42 posted on 01/25/2011 9:33:07 PM PST by dcwusmc (A FREE People have no sovereign save Almighty GOD!!! III OK We are EVERYWHERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc

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.


43 posted on 01/26/2011 6:11:16 AM PST by Dead Corpse (III%. The last line in the sand)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse

Roger THAT!!!


44 posted on 01/26/2011 8:18:56 AM PST by dcwusmc (A FREE People have no sovereign save Almighty GOD!!! III OK We are EVERYWHERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: ATLDiver
Might be a good time to pick up some high-capacity mags before the panic buying and pricing go up.

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.

45 posted on 01/26/2011 9:31:04 AM PST by ExSoldier (Life without God is like an unsharpened pencil: It has no point.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: BCR #226
What does NFRTR stand for?
46 posted on 01/26/2011 9:32:51 AM PST by ExSoldier (Life without God is like an unsharpened pencil: It has no point.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ExSoldier

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.


47 posted on 01/26/2011 9:45:30 AM PST by ATLDiver
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: ExSoldier

National Firearms Registry and Tranfer Record

NFRTR


48 posted on 01/26/2011 3:25:08 PM PST by BCR #226 (07/02 SOT www.extremefirepower.com...The BS stops when the hammer drops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: BCR #226
Is there anyone who knows more than I do about the FirearmsFreedomAct.com than I do. Montana passed a law claiming that anything made within the state and remained within the state was exempt from all federal taxes, registration, and regulation based on the 10th amendment. This matter went to the trial court in Montana and was dismissed on a motion by the feds. Currently the lawsuit is headed for the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals after that I'm sure the Supreme Court. There are a few states that have also passed similar legislation, and more that have it pending. If Montana wins I think that each state would have to pass its own laws on silencers, machine guns, short rifles etc. The feds wouldn't lose everything though, they would still have D.C.
Any thoughts?
49 posted on 01/28/2011 9:38:36 PM PST by cannonball001
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: cannonball001

Yeah, give me time to formulate my thoughts and I’ll respond better than I can at the moment.


50 posted on 01/29/2011 1:35:51 PM PST by BCR #226 (07/02 SOT www.extremefirepower.com...The BS stops when the hammer drops.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson