User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/15/2010 8:16:53 PM EDT
[#1]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Was the hughes amendment passed via reconciliation similar to what they are trying to do with this healthcare bill? I wasn't alive at the time. No... You only need 60 votes if there is a fillibuster - and there was no filibuster... It passed on a voice-vote of questionable clarity.... And even if it were possible to confirm somehow that the voice-vote was not for the amendment, the amendment would still stand because the supreme court doesn't rule on congressional procedure?  Yup. Separation of Powers is a bitch sometimes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/15/2010 9:00:27 PM EDT
[#2]
Did the NFA bill originate in the House? It is a tax bill after all.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/20/2010 8:28:09 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted:
I wonder, hypothetically, what would happen if someone could prove the amendment did not pass? What a can of worms that would open... I like the way you think! |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/20/2010 9:37:03 PM EDT
[#4]
Still lookin' for the tape.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/20/2010 9:41:50 PM EDT
[#5]
Quoted:
Did the NFA bill originate in the House? It is a tax bill after all. Yes. House Ways and Means Committee. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2010 5:32:34 AM EDT
[#6]
Is there any way to get our states involved in this? Being from Texas I would think we could get some backing. If there were enough states pushing this could we have a chance. Oh yeah, tag!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2010 7:07:45 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted: Did the NFA bill originate in the House? It is a tax bill after all. What "NFA bill"? The National Firearms Act of 1934? Yes, it originated in the House. The Gun Control Act of 1968, which amended the NFA '34? It appears to have originated in the Senate. The Hughes Amendment to the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 bill? Introduced during floor debate in the House (not committee). |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2010 7:30:38 AM EDT
[#8]
Quoted: Is there any way to get our states involved in this? Being from Texas I would think we could get some backing. If there were enough states pushing this could we have a chance. Oh yeah, tag! Its simple, but most posters here seem to have no concept of how law is made at the Federal level (where's "Schoolhouse Rock" when you need it?). 1. First, a senator or congressman needs to be convinced this is a political issue important to enough people to introduce a bill to repeal 18 USC § 922(o). 1a. To do this enough money has to be raised to create enough pressure on said senator or congressman (but first, they have to care - Chuck Schumer, for example, will never care). 1b. Part of this money would have to go towards teaching Americans, through TV spots, etc., that "evil" machine guns are not illegal; that they are not "evil"; and that they (Joe and Jane Sixpack) should give a shit about whether you can buy a post May 1986 MG or not. This is critical. 1c. Then Joe and Jane Sixpack need to be organized into a grassroots movement (a "special interest group") with lobbyists to pressure other congressmen and senators. 1d. When enough senators and / or congressmen get excited about the issue / feel the heat from their constituents / get enough donations to sign up as co-sponsors, then 2. The majority party leadership in the House or Senate sends the bill to the appropriate committee. The majority party leadership has to see this as something that will get them reelected or critical to the country - see 1a -1d. 3. If the committee chairman feels enough love / pressure / money the bill will be reported out of committee. 3a. It can be amended in committee. 4. Then it goes to the floor. Once again, you have to have a majority of senators or congressmen convinced its critical to them getting reelected to vote "yes". 4a. It can be amended during the floor debate. 5. Then it goes to the other chamber (Senate or House, depending) and the same process takes place. 6. If the final result in the other chamber is the same, it goes to the President for signature or veto. If he vetoes, you need a 2/3s majority in both chambers to overcome it and it becomes law. 7. If at 5. then two versions are different, then there is a conference committee to adjust the differences, then both chambers vote on it again, then it goes to the President. 7a. The version the joint committee reports out can be totally different than what each chamber originally passed. Now, if pro-life groups haven't been able to generate the fire and the money to reform abortion on demand or even limit partial birth abortion when lots of people feel passionately about that, how are a small percentage of firearms enthusiasts going to do it? Organization and more money than God is the start. Or the Supreme Court. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2010 3:13:00 PM EDT
[#9]
What if for instance the states made it legal for intrastate commerce and governed by the state as a handful of states are attempting with gun rights in general? Being from Texas I'm a fan of made in Texas.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2010 4:10:20 PM EDT
[#10]
Quoted: What if for instance the states made it legal for intrastate commerce and governed by the state as a handful of states are attempting with gun rights in general? Being from Texas I'm a fan of made in Texas. While I believe that the interstate commerce clause has been warped beyond belief by Congress and the Supreme Court, the first step is to use the federal courts to establish the constitutionality of these "firearms freedom laws." Much as I'd love to see that happen, it would have to go to the Supreme Court - probably through conflicting rulings at the Circuit level (as in 9th Circuit upholds a state's firearms freedom law and the 8th Circuit strikes another state's down). And I personally believe that the only way that would fly is for every part and component of the firearm to have been made in that state. The iron ore dug there, refined there, processed into steel there... the oil for the plastic been pumped, refined and molded there... etc. Was that the Framer's intent? No. Is it today's "settled law"? Yes. Then that MG would have to stay in that state forever. Our best bet is to challenge 18 USC § 922(o) in the federal courts and take it to the Supreme Court. And that's a long shot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2010 4:13:45 PM EDT
[#11]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/25/2010 10:49:06 PM EDT
[#12]
Tag!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2010 6:26:09 PM EDT
[#13]
I'm watching the medical marijauna laws in CA and other places.
This may be the way to tell the feds to pound sand on NFA. ps. the war on drugs is really going great, as far as us losing our freedom. And in some cases, our lives. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2010 6:47:21 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
Quoted:
CGA68, copied word-for-word in places from Hitler's gun control act by Dodd's staff, conneticut. nra supported it so that the FUDD dealers wouldn't lose business to mail order guns and ammo any longer. Think 10 years out to what will be banned. Buy it now! Scopes. Ammo. Semi parts. Reloading stuff. Actually it was the firearms industry (the gun and ammo manufacturers) that wanted an end to imported surplus firearms and ammunition, not the dealers. And the NRA stood up to the industry repeatedly throughout the process, but ultimately lost after MLK and RFK's assinations. The National Firearms Act and Federal Firearms Act formed the backdrop for the next major federal firearms legislation, the two statutes known collectively as the Gun Control Act of 1968.[54] As is often the case, the dry legal history of that Act covers a complex legislative reality. The byzantine origins of the Gun Control Act are foreshadowed by the career of its prime sponsor, Senator Thomas Dodd. A staunch conservative[55] who kept a pistol in his desk and once tried to carry it onto the Senate floor,[56] Dodd came from a state that was the center of the American firearms industry.[57]In later years, this apparent paradox was explained––and another created––by the revelation that the early forms of the Gun Control Act were drafted with the assistance and encouragement of firearms manufacturers.[58]<small id="pg596" class="pg">(p.596)
[the footnote] [58] Jack Anderson later charged that "[t]he Big Five––Colt, Olin-Mathieson, Sturm-Ruger, Remington Arms, and Winchester––all have plants in Connecticut. We now learn that Dodd seldom made a move on gun legislation without consulting them." <cite>Washington Post, Aug. 9, 1966, at B15, col. 4</cite>. During hearings on later drafts of Dodd's bill, the president of the firearm and ammunition manufacturers' trade association testified, "[T]his country has in recent years been flooded with millions of cheap surplus military firearms.... Since 1961 we have cooperated with this Subcommittee in seeking to formulate legislation along these lines." <cite>Statement of E.C. Hadley, President of the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute, Remington News Letter, June 1965, at 3-4 (copy in possession of Cumberland Law Review)</cite>. </small> Emphaisis added. Source: http://www.guncite.com/journals/hardfopa.html "Since 1961 we have cooperated with this Subcommittee in seeking to formulate legislation along these lines." It wasn't the NRA that said that.<cite> Also: </cite> In the postwar years, domestic firearms manufacturers encountered heavy competition from home hobbyists who converted inexpensive imported military arms into hunting and target rifles.[59] "Mail order houses" imported such arms for a pittance and resold them to a national market. Domestic arms manufacturers saw their sporting markets undercut and began pressing for protective measures. Protests to the State and Defense Departments over issuance of surplus import licenses yielded little result.[60] The industry then sought a legislative remedy and in 1958 secured passage in the House of a rider to the Mutual Security Act that would have barred virtually all surplus arms imports.[61] The National Rifle Association took issue with the manufacturers and strongly opposed the amendment.[62] The Senate, citing possible violations of the General Agreement on Trades and Tariffs, limited the restriction to reimportations of American arms,[63] a restriction which prevailed in conference.[64]
After this failure, the firearms manufacturers approached Senator Dodd, with arguments and suitable tribute.[65]<small id="pg597" class="pg">(p.597)</small>Dodd's original effort, S. 1975, was introduced in August 1963 and had extremely limited scope. S. 1975 would have required mail-order purchasers of handguns to provide the seller with notarized affirmations that they met certain age and other requirements. In November and December, Dodd proposed amendments that would have applied to rifles and shotguns as well and would have required certification by the chief law enforcement officer of the purchaser's jurisdiction.[66]
INSERT QUOTE TEXT
Um... the NRA actively supported the 68 Gun Control Act... See the American Rifleman, March 1968, P. 22 and 23. They proudly proclaim their support of most of the trash laws that had passed up to that point and proclaimed their support for the GCA. The NRA is our enemy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2010 9:25:39 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
CGA68, copied word-for-word in places from Hitler's gun control act by Dodd's staff, conneticut. nra supported it so that the FUDD dealers wouldn't lose business to mail order guns and ammo any longer. Think 10 years out to what will be banned. Buy it now! Scopes. Ammo. Semi parts. Reloading stuff. Actually it was the firearms industry (the gun and ammo manufacturers) that wanted an end to imported surplus firearms and ammunition, not the dealers. And the NRA stood up to the industry repeatedly throughout the process, but ultimately lost after MLK and RFK's assinations. The National Firearms Act and Federal Firearms Act formed the backdrop for the next major federal firearms legislation, the two statutes known collectively as the Gun Control Act of 1968.[54] As is often the case, the dry legal history of that Act covers a complex legislative reality. The byzantine origins of the Gun Control Act are foreshadowed by the career of its prime sponsor, Senator Thomas Dodd. A staunch conservative[55] who kept a pistol in his desk and once tried to carry it onto the Senate floor,[56] Dodd came from a state that was the center of the American firearms industry.[57]In later years, this apparent paradox was explained––and another created––by the revelation that the early forms of the Gun Control Act were drafted with the assistance and encouragement of firearms manufacturers.[58]<small id="pg596" class="pg">(p.596)
[the footnote] [58] Jack Anderson later charged that "[t]he Big Five––Colt, Olin-Mathieson, Sturm-Ruger, Remington Arms, and Winchester––all have plants in Connecticut. We now learn that Dodd seldom made a move on gun legislation without consulting them." <cite>Washington Post, Aug. 9, 1966, at B15, col. 4</cite>. During hearings on later drafts of Dodd's bill, the president of the firearm and ammunition manufacturers' trade association testified, "[T]his country has in recent years been flooded with millions of cheap surplus military firearms.... Since 1961 we have cooperated with this Subcommittee in seeking to formulate legislation along these lines." <cite>Statement of E.C. Hadley, President of the Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute, Remington News Letter, June 1965, at 3-4 (copy in possession of Cumberland Law Review)</cite>. </small> Emphaisis added. Source: http://www.guncite.com/journals/hardfopa.html "Since 1961 we have cooperated with this Subcommittee in seeking to formulate legislation along these lines." It wasn't the NRA that said that.<cite> Also: </cite> In the postwar years, domestic firearms manufacturers encountered heavy competition from home hobbyists who converted inexpensive imported military arms into hunting and target rifles.[59] "Mail order houses" imported such arms for a pittance and resold them to a national market. Domestic arms manufacturers saw their sporting markets undercut and began pressing for protective measures. Protests to the State and Defense Departments over issuance of surplus import licenses yielded little result.[60] The industry then sought a legislative remedy and in 1958 secured passage in the House of a rider to the Mutual Security Act that would have barred virtually all surplus arms imports.[61] The National Rifle Association took issue with the manufacturers and strongly opposed the amendment.[62] The Senate, citing possible violations of the General Agreement on Trades and Tariffs, limited the restriction to reimportations of American arms,[63] a restriction which prevailed in conference.[64]
After this failure, the firearms manufacturers approached Senator Dodd, with arguments and suitable tribute.[65]<small id="pg597" class="pg">(p.597)</small>Dodd's original effort, S. 1975, was introduced in August 1963 and had extremely limited scope. S. 1975 would have required mail-order purchasers of handguns to provide the seller with notarized affirmations that they met certain age and other requirements. In November and December, Dodd proposed amendments that would have applied to rifles and shotguns as well and would have required certification by the chief law enforcement officer of the purchaser's jurisdiction.[66]
INSERT QUOTE TEXT
Um... the NRA actively supported the 68 Gun Control Act... See the American Rifleman, March 1968, P. 22 and 23. They proudly proclaim their support of most of the trash laws that had passed up to that point and proclaimed their support for the GCA. The NRA is our enemy. Yes, because the same people that ran the NRA 42 years ago are the same people running the NRA today.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2010 11:01:00 PM EDT
[#16]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Um... the NRA actively supported the 68 Gun Control Act... See the American Rifleman, March 1968, P. 22 and 23. They proudly proclaim their support of most of the trash laws that had passed up to that point and proclaimed their support for the GCA. The NRA is our enemy. Yes, because the same people that ran the NRA 42 years ago are the same people running the NRA today. The same ideas sure as hell are. Compromise, cash, cowardice, and comfort. Same ideas that run the political parties. Screw the NRA. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/28/2010 11:09:04 PM EDT
[#17]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Um... the NRA actively supported the 68 Gun Control Act... See the American Rifleman, March 1968, P. 22 and 23. They proudly proclaim their support of most of the trash laws that had passed up to that point and proclaimed their support for the GCA. The NRA is our enemy. Yes, because the same people that ran the NRA 42 years ago are the same people running the NRA today. The same ideas sure as hell are. Compromise, cash, cowardice, and comfort. Same ideas that run the political parties. Screw the NRA. Fine. Would you prefer NO representation in Washington? You have no idea how to make political gains. That's the type of mentality that says, "the NRA supports shall-issue CCW but not constitution carry, which I support so instead of settling for CCW I'll take no legal way to carry." You want to live in a state where the efforts of groups like the NRA have no effect? Move where I live and enjoy 10 round magazines, and CCW permits issued at the discretion of unscrupulous (and in my case, un-elected) sheriffs. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2010 11:00:50 AM EDT
[#18]
Still lookin' for the tape.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/2/2010 11:25:58 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
Quoted:
YOU GUYS ARE WRONG ON THE VOTE THAT TOOK PLACE ON THE HUGHES AMENDMENT!!! I watched that vote live on C-Span that day. The vote on the Hughes amendment WAS BEFORE THE FULL HOUSE IN THE MAIN HOUSE CHAMBER.......IT WAS NOT A JUDICIARY COMMITTEE VOTE!! Charlie Wrangel was the ACTING HOUSE SPEAKER when the vote on the Hughes Amendment took place. He asked for a voice vote and has been already stated, the NO's were clearly in the majority but Wrangel stated that the AYE's had it. Everything was predictable up to this point. Normally after a voice vote is held and the Speaker announces the "winning" side, someone will ask for a RECORDED VOTE TO BE TAKEN. This way it is recorded for history how each Representative voted and thus what the vote totals were. A RECORDED VOTE WAS NOT ASKED FOR AFTER THE VOICE VOTE!!! Why no one demanded a recorded vote I do not know. The situation is VERY STRANGE to say the least! I knew some of that but still.....That disgusts me to no end, This is not the first time Rangel has done this... was something last summer, but don't recall exactly what the issue was. I do recall someone asking for a recorded vote after the verbal was obviously a no and Rangel scolded them and said "it passed, because I said it did." There was much bickering regarding procedure and Rangel stated that he set procedures.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2010 12:01:18 PM EDT
[#20]
bump...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2010 12:06:55 PM EDT
[#21]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Um... the NRA actively supported the 68 Gun Control Act... See the American Rifleman, March 1968, P. 22 and 23. They proudly proclaim their support of most of the trash laws that had passed up to that point and proclaimed their support for the GCA. The NRA is our enemy. Yes, because the same people that ran the NRA 42 years ago are the same people running the NRA today. Screw the NRA. Oh boy, you've done it now.   |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2010 12:14:56 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
Its simple, but most posters here seem to have no concept of how law is made at the Federal level (where's "Schoolhouse Rock" when you need it?). That is far too difficult. Has anybody asked what it would cost to get it slipped in without debate with the next bill that gives the Congress a pay raise? |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2010 12:15:59 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Um... the NRA actively supported the 68 Gun Control Act... See the American Rifleman, March 1968, P. 22 and 23. They proudly proclaim their support of most of the trash laws that had passed up to that point and proclaimed their support for the GCA. The NRA is our enemy. Yes, because the same people that ran the NRA 42 years ago are the same people running the NRA today. The same ideas sure as hell are. Compromise, cash, cowardice, and comfort. Same ideas that run the political parties. Screw the NRA. OK fine. You can, I won't. Here's the deal; the NRA is a group that does a lot of things. Some of them are political and if you're going to deal with politicians you better know how to play the game. Purism is great in theory but in reality nothing is pure and that includes the NRA. However who else is effective at the federal level? GOA? JPFO? I'm sure both have their influences but the NRA is the big dog and has been for years. Running them out on a rail is going to create a vacuum in that lobbying slot and I don't think either the GOA or the JPFO is going to fill it effectively. Sometimes the games are a little more complicated than checkers and the NRA has been playing the game for a long time and knows the rules. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2010 12:43:43 PM EDT
[#24]
I find it hard to believe with such a major historical firearms restriction that nobody called for a recorded vote after the voice vote.
Seems impossible to stomach that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2010 7:48:21 PM EDT
[#25]
Is there an organization that is working to repeal Hughes???
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2010 7:51:07 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted: Is there an organization that is working to repeal Hughes??? Hijack: I think it be better to remove the "sporting" clause from federal code, to eliminate some subjectivity in the statute.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2010 8:44:51 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted:
AFAIK, they did, but that Rangel ignored them. That is why people want to see the tape.
I find it hard to believe with such a major historical firearms restriction that nobody called for a recorded vote after the voice vote. Seems impossible to stomach that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2010 8:46:57 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is there an organization that is working to repeal Hughes??? Hijack: I think it be better to remove the "sporting" clause from federal code, to eliminate some subjectivity in the statute.
but it has to be done carefully, otherwise you have just made every shotgun with a bore over .50" a destructivie device. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2010 9:40:03 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
Quoted:
They didn't ask for a recorded vote, as I remember.. That was what the 'LET IT GO' that was whispered by the people on the right side of the screen was all about! Who were they? Every source says that after the voice vote was declared "the ayes have it" by Rangel, numerous representatives called for a recorded vote. I watched it on TV... I remember they booed when Rangel said "the ayes have it" and there were calls for a recorded vote. I don't remember if Rangel refused it, or ignored them. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2010 10:33:48 PM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
Is there an organization that is working to repeal Hughes??? What we should do is use the current Border Violence as a tactic to repeal this amendment. I believe it would be a good way to get the support of people especially in border states. The government has always used scare tactics to pass bills. We should use this as an advantage to REPEAL one, plus we all know this is a legitimate danger to our nation. edit: Furthermore, we know that there are plenty of people that are pissed at the current administration for not doing its job. Protecting our borders!!! I think we would have a legitimate argument for a law abiding citizen to own a FA not just because I/we would want one but for protecting ourselves/families against narco terrorists who neither care for the laws or citizens of this country. OUR COUNTRY!! |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/8/2010 11:18:25 PM EDT
[#31]
Quoted:
I'm watching the medical marijauna laws in CA and other places. This may be the way to tell the feds to pound sand on NFA. ps. the war on drugs is really going great, as far as us losing our freedom. And in some cases, our lives. I've been thinking the same thing. It's not a war on drugs, it's a war on personal freedom. This thread is depressing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2010 3:37:18 PM EDT
[#32]
bump...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2010 5:36:11 PM EDT
[#33]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2010 5:58:59 PM EDT
[#34]
Quoted: http://www.4shared.com/document/G4hD9x-6/Congressional_Transcript.html From: http://www.subguns.com/boards/mgmsg.cgi?read=730091 Filthy bastards this is one of the most vile things I have ever read. I hope rangel gets ass cancer. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/9/2010 6:01:19 PM EDT
[#35]
in
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/11/2010 9:02:50 PM EDT
[#36]
The transcript is not the way I remember it. The vote was on the whole bill, not hughes.
Still looking for the tape. |
|
|
|
Posted: 6/14/2010 6:36:29 PM EDT
[#37]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 6/27/2010 4:40:30 PM EDT
[#38]
Bump. Where are we on repealing this bs?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2010 10:12:43 PM EDT
[#39]
Quoted:
Bump. Where are we on repealing this bs? Anything new on this? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/14/2010 10:28:09 PM EDT
[#40]
im curious what everyone here who was an adult at that time thought about it passing and why didn't any of you guys buy as many full auto firearms as you could afford before the ban took effect? |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/15/2010 5:28:55 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted: im curious what everyone here who was an adult at that time thought about it passing and why didn't any of you guys buy as many full auto firearms as you could afford before the ban took effect? In my case it was out of ignorance. I had been fed urban legends that a permit that cost 5k was needed to own one. I saw M16's for sale at gun shows for less than 3k but adding 5k to that was not doable. We had no internet back then to do research and I believed an older person that seemed to know their stuff about this subject. They were wrong and I never bought one while they were "affordable". |
|
|
|
Posted: 8/17/2010 6:13:03 PM EDT
[#42]
Also, lots of people lived where no full auto was allowed, e.g., NY
Or where chief LEO SCUMBAGS wouldn't sign a form 4. |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2010 5:26:49 AM EDT
[#43]
Ever find the video?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2010 5:32:51 AM EDT
[#44]
2. The majority party leadership in the House or Senate sends the bill to the appropriate committee. The majority party leadership has to see this as something that will get them reelected or critical to the country - see 1a -1d. one mistake there, please strike "or critical to the country", |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/14/2010 5:43:27 AM EDT
[#45]
tag
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/22/2010 11:52:27 AM EDT
[#46]
I sent a research request for the archival footage in to Cspan through my student email account at Columbia, so we'll see if that works (Its been effective in the past for similar projects)
I also pulled the actual congressional record to confirm the text file thats been passed around and then made a PDF of it. Here is a PDF of the relevant section of April 10th https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B4xHVurgr6T4NmRkYjJmZTYtM2MzNS00ODk2LWJjODYtYWY4ZDAzY2Q0NjEz&sort=name&layout=list&num=50 Here is a TXT file of the relevant section of April 10th https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B4xHVurgr6T4NDMwM2YyZWYtNmFlNS00MDRkLWJhZDYtNmY3Y2Q4NjU0ODcw&hl=en Here is a PDF of the full section of April 10th https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B4xHVurgr6T4NDU5NjhhNGEtYjRlMy00YTQxLWE5MTUtMzhjMGNlNDA0ODk2&sort=name&layout=list&num=50 I don't know if this will be helpful at all (separation of powers makes it all but impossible to undo something like this), but its definitely interesting. Keep the peace, Ajax |
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2010 3:09:20 AM EDT
[#47]
Tagging this.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2010 3:37:33 AM EDT
[#48]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Was the hughes amendment passed via reconciliation similar to what they are trying to do with this healthcare bill? I wasn't alive at the time. No... You only need 60 votes if there is a fillibuster - and there was no filibuster... It passed on a voice-vote of questionable clarity.... And even if it were possible to confirm somehow that the voice-vote was not for the amendment, the amendment would still stand because the supreme court doesn't rule on congressional procedure? Yup. Separation of Powers is a bitch sometimes. Guess they aren't so supreme after all Kinda fucked up IMO 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2010 4:06:32 AM EDT
[#49]
Are they ever going to get it going??
|
|
|
|
Posted: 10/23/2010 4:23:06 AM EDT
[#50]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I wonder, hypothetically, what would happen if someone could prove the amendment did not pass? What a can of worms that would open... Might be a novel argument for the defense in an illegal mg case. Is there a lawyer in the house? That's precisely what I was thinking. I'm sure it would have to go to SCOTUS though. To have standing, I think you'd have to prove that you actually tried to register a post '86 gun and were denied. Not a big deal. Since they wouldn't let you register it, they would refund your check so it wouldn't even cost $200.
|
|
|
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
