86 Hughes Amendment Vote footage located

[Girodin]

Yea someone did, it was rock island v somebody in the 10th circuit....

That interests me, any more specifics or a point in the right direction to where I can find more specifics?

Not in the tenth circuit seeing as last I check IL was in the 7th but this may be the case to which he is referring.

US v. Rock Island Armory, Inc., 773 F. Supp. 117 - Dist. Court, CD Illinois 1991

I prefer lexis nexis and if you have access there are valuable aids that come with it but google scholar is free and offers the opinion.

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_c...sland+machine+gun&hl=en&as_sdt=20000000000002

I have done no other research on this issue, just the 30 seconds I spent finding the opinion and the 5 minutes I spent reading it. Interesting.

Edit to add that slightly more research (like another five minutes) reveals that the above cited case has received a fair amount of negative treatment including its reasoning being rejected by the 7th circuit arguably making it no longer good law See United States v. Ross, 9 F.3d 1182, 1192-94 (7th Cir.1993) (choosing to follow the Fourth Circuit's ruling in Jones, supra, over the decisions in Dalton and Rock Island Armory ). The issue appears to have been touched on by other district and circuit courts.

There is also a 10th circuit case: United States v. Dalton, 960 F.2d 121 (10th Cir.1992). I haven't read it in its entirety yet but if you punch the citation into google scholar you can get the text of that case.

The fourth circuit seems to have rejected the reasoning of Rock Island Armory in United States v. Jones, 976 F.2d 176 (4th Cir.1992).

I wish I had time to dig through all the case law and issues and to write something up on it. I simply don't right now, but maybe in the future. It seems fairly interesting.

 

[Quaamik]

GeorgeF said:
On an aside, think of all the cottage industry this would create. All that extra $$$ for the government at $200 per new MG. All those companies supplying parts and new designs. Not to mention all the EXTRA ammo that would be consumed to feed these toys.

What a wonderful way to boost the economy

Please mention this angle when writing to congress. The current congress got in office with a demand from voters to concentrate on the economy and the deficit. They aren't going to want to go off on a tangent (at least not early) unless they can relate it back to one of those.

Things to keep in mind:
- The AR 15 platform is the largest selling sinlge rifle model as of last year.
- The fire control componants to convert one to full auto could be made and sold for under $200 + the tax stamp.
- If around 1000 individuals per state where full auto is legal purchased either a full auto, or a conversion kit, that would add up to around 6 - 7 million per year in additional revenue for the goverment.
- Remember to mention that only 1 (or was it 2?) legaly registered machine guns were ever used in a crime, and that one by a police officer.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

The conversion costs a few cents to make, but because of pricing it would be about $50.

 

[Alecbh]

Huzzah! Great job with this. I for one would not mind taking a 'hit' on the value of my collection if that meant I could get more toys.

On an aside, think of all the cottage industry this would create. All that extra $$$ for the government at $200 per new MG. All those companies supplying parts and new designs. Not to mention all the EXTRA ammo that would be consumed to feed these toys.

What a wonderful way to boost the economy

I posted almost this exact same thought on this forum a couple months ago as an angle to repeal the MG ban, and I was almost laughed out of the thread. :banghead: At least I know the majority understands it's a very valid point.

 

[Ingsoc75]

Any news on getting the footage online?

 

[Dreamcast270mhz]

Yeah lets get this thing gone for good

 

[kenny87]

I posted this on gun and game and its a method I thought of to repel Hughes that may have a chance if given the opportunity to be implemented somehow. Actually its not even repelling its more or less just modifying it. As I understand the Hughes amendment clearly made exceptions for LE and Govt agencies for ownership of post-86 machine guns.

Think about it, anti gun people don't want "individuals" to have access to these weapons.

Does a weapon need to be registered to an "individual" for him to have it. No, of course not.

What I am thinking is modifying the amendment to include businesses and corporations as an exception. It will simply look like a bill adding protection for organizations needing protection from criminal behavior or something. When in reality it allows any citizen to buy weapons for his corp, without any restrictions on what kind of corp it has to be.

Therefore civilians will still not have post-86 machine guns, but their business can. It would be letting civilians have these guns without really letting them have them.

Only real downside is the corp method is the least desirable and takes a small amount of funds to keep active.

 

[dirt_j00]

If you include trusts in that list with businesses and corporations, you might be on to something...

 

[kenny87]

problem is its harder to justify a trust to someone who doesn't want people to have these guns, a business would be doable I think. Trusts are generally exclusive for private property of individuals and would be almost as difficult to explain as letting individuals have ownership. Corporations would be easier to slide through I think.

Again, this would be a last alternative, the best thing would be to abolish this amendment all together.

 

[AJAX22]

IT IS HERE!!!!

WATCHING IT NOW!!!

WooooooO!!!!

I'm uploading as soon as i can

 

[S.W.G.]

Can't wait!

 

[Prince Yamato]

PLEASE post the link ASAP.

 

[AJAX22]

here you go, this is the highlight reel, I'll post full footage when its ready.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6Mx2UcSEvQ

 

[kenny87]

as some one who is an idiot when it comes to political matters, is there anything we can do with this?

 

[Ingsoc75]

Wow. Just wow.

 

[Prince Yamato]

A translation (I know nothing of congressional procedure):

(0:40): Roemer (D. LA) asks whether amendments to the bill not heard in the next 4 minutes will be invalid.

(0:53-1:11): Rangel (D) confirms that any amendments heard with in the next 4 minutes will not be offered.

(1:11-2:00): Hughes (D) asks for an extension on voting for his amendment, Rangel denies.

(~2:10-5:30): Hughes asks for a vote on an extension. Tries to have vote read. General chaos and yelling ensues. Hughes complains that MGs have no sporting value and that time is running out. Wants to get a waiver of the reading demanding to know why anyone would NOT want to ban MGs.

(5:30-6:00): Clerk finishes reading. Committee rises to vote.

(6:00): Voice vote. Rangel declares that AYEs have it. Recorded vote demanded. Rangel concedes to to electronic (recorded vote).

(6:45): Electronic vote recorded: 297 No / 124 Yes.
Hughes Amendment voted down!

(7:30): Hughes complains and wants to explain why he needs an MG ban.

(8:30): Rangel takes another voice vote, this time on the Volkmer substitute law and declares that the AYEs have it.

(9:00): Rangel (asks for clarification of Volkmer Substitute) again. This time with voice vote, NOs have it.

(9:15): Electronic vote requested.

(9:45): Volkmer substitute passes 286 YES / 136 No- contains language from Hughes bill.

(12:00): Votes for passing the bill as now revised: 291 Yes/129 NO

So, basically, the video has the MG ban passing via the Volkmer Substitute.
---
I will admit though, the whole thing is very confusing and chaotic to watch. Someone please correct any mistakes I made. The funny thing is, this amendment shouldn't have been allowed to be added, given that no new amendments could be added after the 4 minute mark. Although, I'm not sure if a substitute bill counts as an amendment or a different bill entirely... Someone who knows congressional procedure, PLEASE clarify.

 

[FIVETWOSEVEN]

Disgusting, thats just disgusting.

This should hopefully be enough to defeat it.

 

[Samsonite]

Correct me if I'm wrong, at 8:18 Rangle says " the Question is on the adoption of the Hughes Amendment to the Volkmer Substitute" in which they do a voice vote again with Mr. Rangle saying the ayes have it. You hear people in the background saying "Let it go, Let it go..." Wasn't it this re-vote that attached the Hughes amendment to the Volkmer bill? Why didn't anyone demand a recorded vote again like the first time? Definitely shady at best.

 

[Dreamcast270mhz]

Well we can still say the amendment never passed and therefore not enforceable

 

[Zoogster]

WOW!


The Hughes Amendment was voted on by voice vote, from the audio it clearly sounds like the no's had it, but he said it passed. Then they take an accurate electronic vote and as the audio had indicated prior it was mainly no's that had it.


The speaker then indicated that "All time has expired in consideration of the Hughes Amendment to the Volkmer substitute".
The Hughes Amendment was defeated and all time for consideration of that specific Amendment was expired.
Then Hughes complains and creates confusion.


I wonder how many were confused at that point and didn't understand what was being done and when they heard Volkmer, a project many had worked on (FOPA) and voted in favor of it not realizing the Hughes Amendment which had already been defeated was yet again tacked on.

Or was the house really that quick to adjust their votes 180 degrees just because someone complains and give whoever is stalling their day their way? It would have been sad if all you had to do back then was take a stance and hold up progress for a few minutes to get your way and have 100 votes switch over without any argument presented at all.
I don't really think that is what happened, they didn't all change their minds in a minute without hearing any new arguments.



Does anyone have a history of the McClure-Volkmer Act to see if it had previously had any adjustments or amendments at another time before it was voted on at this time?
I know many in Congress don't know exactly what they are voting on sometimes and having had adviser tell such representatives to "support the Volkmer Act" could have confused the issue after having the just defeated Hughes Amendment tacked on again.
They vote on numerous bills that go through the House and they only have partial understanding on many things they vote on throughout a session.
A lot of legislation has previously had many amendments and refinements before they finally get to the final form and passage so addressing it as such may not have made what had happened apparent to those representatives not intimately familiar with the legislation's history.


That is what you get when Congress is busy passing legislation non stop and 50% of the people don't really know what they are voting on, just an aide or adviser's summary and how they are supposed to vote when they hear the title.


They defeated the Hughes Amendment quite clearly, announced all time was up on it, and then passed the Hughes Amendment in a less than straightforward way. While Hughes references unrelated amendments they won't get to and makes no real argument for the one just defeated.


Thank you for obtaining this, I was wondering what the truth was, and this shows it was a confusing mess that only a strong gun rights representative familiar with the McClure Volkmer Act would have even understood. Some of your typical representatives would have been confused, something defeated they were against when clearly voted on somehow then was amended to something they knew they were supposed to vote for...
And they vote for it. Passing what they had already defeated along with it.

Part of the blame is probably with the speaker who didn't keep clear command and proper sense of direction.
I have the benefit of watching it a few times, some of those in the moment not familiar with the legislation in question would have been confused.

 

[Prince Yamato]

Part of the blame is probably with the speaker who didn't keep clear command and proper sense of direction.
I have the benefit of watching it a few times, some of those in the moment not familiar with the legislation in question would have been confused.

No kidding, it's like opening day on Wall-Street! A total zoo! I'm rewatching it and I'm now second guessing my first analysis!

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

It confused me too. Are there any folks on here familiar with house procedures or at least able to understand parlimentary prodedure to decipher exactly what happend, and if there is anything we can do about it at this point? PLEASE!!!!

 

[Zoogster]

No kidding, it's like opening day on Wall-Street! A total zoo!

Rangel, the guy with the gavel, was also extremely anti-gun and was engaged in a lot of anti-gang activity in the 80s and saw guns as something that needed banning.
He got his way in the chaos.
Here is some of Rangel's current beliefs as of this month:

http://rangel.house.gov/2011/01/standing-up-to-gun-violence.html



He first said the Hughes amendment passed by voice vote, then a recorded vote which actually has people enter a vote clearly showed it didn't.
Then later he does a voice vote again on the same exact thing that was already defeated just a few minutes prior.
He never gets an electronic vote this time, obviously it failed just like the first time yet Rangel just declares the Volkmer act amended with the Hughes Amendment at 8:29 in that clip.
Rangel through this sly manipulation intended to kill the FOPA/Volkmer Act.
He then never gives the opportunity to address that or get an electronic vote.
After some gavel pounding he then immediately says "The question before the committee is on the Volkmer substitute as amended. He asks for a vote on the Volkmer act, which has now been Amended with the Hughes Amendment as declared by Randel in 8:29 after the voice vote that was never allowed an electronic vote.
Since the Volkmer act has now been amended, if it is voted down the entire FOPA goes down and has to start over, and FOPA was a strong pro gun bill with a lot of work put into it that many representatives had been told to support.
Randel then declares FOPA to not have passed after a voice vote, FOPA is finished, just as the Hughes amendment was intended to do. Rangel once again for the third time in a few minutes declares a voice vote to be the exact opposite of what it was.
However on this vote someone then is able to demand an electronic vote, unlike on the second confusing Hughes Amendment. The vote clearly shows FOPA is passed and FOPA goes into law with the Hughes Amendment.


Rangel declared three voice votes the opposite of what they really were (as the two verified by electronic vote clearly showed), but unfortunately the middle one didn't get an electronic verification that he was wrong and that was the second time they voted on the Hughes amendment.
So when the Hughes amendment vote was verified the first time it showed the result was the opposite of Rangel declaring it had passed, it had failed by a wide margin.
When he declared FOPA failed after voice vote the electronic verification clearly showed he was wrong again in declaring it to have not passed.
From the sound and the evidence it was pretty clear the second time they voted on the Hughes amendment it had failed again, but Rangel managed to speed things along without an electronic vote that time.



Can you imagine if a First Amendment freedom would have vanished in such a manner?
All books after X date dealing with Y subjects couldn't be published? Only books on those subjects produced before that date could be transferred.
With various exempted classes, like politicians, certain lawyers...
All by slyly tacking it on to a pro freedom of speech bill?

 

[wannasupra]

just to put it out there, whether these weapons are used in a crime or not are totally moot, since crime, by definition, is already illegal. so if it turns out that this amendment was never lawfully passed, what does that mean for the everyday firearm enthusiast?

 

[LawofThirds]

It would mean that all the money spent on full auto at current prices would have not been a sound investment.