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.
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.
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.