User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 3/15/2010 7:57:29 PM EDT
[#1]
Tag.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2010 7:58:41 PM EDT
[#2]
Quoted: Tag. yep |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2010 8:00:28 PM EDT
[#3]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Tag. yep In. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2010 8:00:44 PM EDT
[#4]
Hughes, judiciary subcommittee, April 10th, I think. I wonder if the "let it go" is still on the tape.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2010 8:01:29 PM EDT
[#5]
t..a... to the g..
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2010 8:03:59 PM EDT
[#6]
I wonder, hypothetically, what would happen if someone could prove the amendment did not pass?
What a can of worms that would open... |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2010 8:05:55 PM EDT
[#7]
subscribe
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2010 8:13:15 PM EDT
[#8]
I think Rangel(sp) NYC, was the chair of the committee. I recorded it on a beta tape and can't find it.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2010 8:34:48 PM EDT
[#9]
I can't get any video or transcript, is the site working?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2010 8:36:53 PM EDT
[#10]
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? |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2010 8:38:18 PM EDT
[#11]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/15/2010 9:33:21 PM EDT
[#12]
tag
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2010 4:25:51 PM EDT
[#13]
Anybody find the video of the committee meeting? The session was only of the house meeting, not the judiciary committee.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2010 5:40:49 PM EDT
[#14]
The archive starts in 1987. :(
If anyone has video of it from CSPAN, regardless of the format, I will either convert it or pay to convert it to get it online. I've been looking for this video for at least 5 years. I had just turned 2 when it aired. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2010 5:45:00 PM EDT
[#15]
You won't find the footage. I've scoured the internet plenty of times, to no avail.
 I'm sure plenty of people recorded it on VHS, but I've yet to see anyone upload their copy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2010 5:48:26 PM EDT
[#16]
In.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2010 5:54:44 PM EDT
[#17]
Tag...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2010 6:02:49 PM EDT
[#18]
Using post 6000 to say, fuck charlie rangel, fuck the democrats, and fuck obama.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2010 6:03:38 PM EDT
[#19]
nice
ETA: I guess i'll be burning post 5000 to do the same as the poster above me.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2010 6:07:51 PM EDT
[#20]
I will burn post 1444
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2010 6:41:17 PM EDT
[#21]
Tagged and stuff....
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2010 6:43:19 PM EDT
[#22]
Quoted:
Tagged and stuff.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2010 8:09:14 PM EDT
[#23]
Quoted:
I think Rangel(sp) NYC, was the chair of the committee. I recorded it on a beta tape and can't find it. Find it, send it to me. I'll get it converted and post it to YouTube. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2010 8:11:16 PM EDT
[#24]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2010 8:13:25 PM EDT
[#25]
Nothing - it's moot.
Quoted: I wonder, hypothetically, what would happen if someone could prove the amendment did not pass? What a can of worms that would open... |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2010 8:15:59 PM EDT
[#26]
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. That's rather easy. Fill out the form and send it in. When they reject it, you have standing. You never have to actually have a post '86 gun in your posession or anything illegal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2010 8:31:55 PM EDT
[#27]
And I'm in.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2010 8:33:27 PM EDT
[#28]
I am pre-tagging this for when I remember to renew my membership.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/17/2010 10:16:17 PM EDT
[#29]
Quoted:
The archive starts in 1987. :( If anyone has video of it from CSPAN, regardless of the format, I will either convert it or pay to convert it to get it online. I've been looking for this video for at least 5 years. I had just turned 2 when it aired. I'm in for $100 of the cost if it gets expensive. PM me if you ever find it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2010 5:28:15 PM EDT
[#30]
If we never find it, is there such a thing as one of the Arfcom family having a CSPAN connection?
As I remember it, there were a few people in the hearing room, with rangel in front facing the camera and everyone else with their backs to the camera. It only took a short time to bring the hughes amendment up. rangel asked for the yeas and there were a few voices. He then asked for the nays and there were a few shouts 'NO!'. The usual 'the yeas have it' and a whisper in the background (one of our guys!) saying, 'let it go'. Then it was on to the next business. They 'let it go'. A handful of people, maybe less than a dozen, lost the right. The whole bill went to reagan and he signed it. Rumor has it that ted kennedy (rot in hell **^*(%^%$&#&%^$) had a pile of MGs. And yes, I'm still looking for the tape. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2010 6:07:59 PM EDT
[#31]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2010 6:18:57 PM EDT
[#32]
tag
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2010 6:39:03 PM EDT
[#33]
No, it was part of a committee (house judiciary) meeting to work on the stuff that was going into the bill. Some stuff made it, unfortunately.
The house had been run by the demos since forever, however.. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2010 6:43:15 PM EDT
[#34]
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. It won't have any effect. The courts will not "look behind" the legilative process as a matter of separation of powers. Once the Vice President (or president pro tem) and the Speaker of the House certify that the respective bodies each passed a bill that's it. If the President then signs the bill it becomes law whether there was a procedural irregularity or not. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2010 6:50:32 PM EDT
[#35]
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. It won't have any effect. The courts will not "look behind" the legilative process as a matter of separation of powers. Once the Vice President (or president pro tem) and the Speaker of the House certify that the respective bodies each passed a bill that's it. If the President then signs the bill it becomes law whether there was a procedural irregularity or not. Perhaps a minor irregularity but this is a Constitutional question, so I would be surprised if they did not take it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2010 6:57:07 PM EDT
[#36]
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. It won't have any effect. The courts will not "look behind" the legilative process as a matter of separation of powers. Once the Vice President (or president pro tem) and the Speaker of the House certify that the respective bodies each passed a bill that's it. If the President then signs the bill it becomes law whether there was a procedural irregularity or not. Nah, that doesn't make any sense. What you just said is that 3 people could write and pass any bill they want, all by themselves, regardless of what anybody else says about it, and SCOTUS wouldn't even be the slightest bit interested. Not likely. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2010 7:08:51 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted: 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. It won't have any effect. The courts will not "look behind" the legilative process as a matter of separation of powers. Once the Vice President (or president pro tem) and the Speaker of the House certify that the respective bodies each passed a bill that's it. If the President then signs the bill it becomes law whether there was a procedural irregularity or not. Nah, that doesn't make any sense. What you just said is that 3 people could write and pass any bill they want, all by themselves, regardless of what anybody else says about it, and SCOTUS wouldn't even be the slightest bit interested. Not likely. I wonder. As a layman, it seems to me that the court is charged with deciding constitutional matters. Something like this doesn't sound like a "procedural irregularity," it sounds like a cut and dry constitutional issue that the court would have a clear right to decide on. I don't see it as a separation of powers issue I see it as the SCOTUS doing their damn job. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2010 7:13:33 PM EDT
[#38]
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. It won't have any effect. The courts will not "look behind" the legilative process as a matter of separation of powers. Once the Vice President (or president pro tem) and the Speaker of the House certify that the respective bodies each passed a bill that's it. If the President then signs the bill it becomes law whether there was a procedural irregularity or not. Nah, that doesn't make any sense. What you just said is that 3 people could write and pass any bill they want, all by themselves, regardless of what anybody else says about it, and SCOTUS wouldn't even be the slightest bit interested. Not likely. I wonder. As a layman, it seems to me that the court is charged with deciding constitutional matters. Something like this doesn't sound like a "procedural irregularity," it sounds like a cut and dry constitutional issue that the court would have a clear right to decide on. I don't see it as a separation of powers issue I see it as the SCOTUS doing their damn job. Exactly. If the law wasn't passed, then no matter who "says" it was passed, or who signed it, it can't be a law –– at least not in any way I can imagine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2010 7:21:25 PM EDT
[#39]
The issue came up a few years ago when the Dems sued because the Reps used "deem and pass" on a bill the Dems didn't like. They claimed "deem and pass" was unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals refused to rule that the law was passed unconsitiutionally for the exact reason given. The SCOTUS refused to take the case.
Like it or not, there is something called "separation of powers". The courts won't pass judgment on how a law was passed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2010 7:26:02 PM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
Nah, that doesn't make any sense. Your problem is that you're attempting to apply logic to the law. You'll never get anywhere trying that. In the first place, lawyers don't think the way "laymen" do. In the second place, logic doesn't count for much. As it was put decades ago: "The life of the law is not logic, but experience." |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/19/2010 7:32:09 PM EDT
[#41]
Quoted: The issue came up a few years ago when the Dems sued because the Reps used "deem and pass" on a bill the Dems didn't like. They claimed "deem and pass" was unconstitutional. The Court of Appeals refused to rule that the law was passed unconsitiutionally for the exact reason given. The SCOTUS refused to take the case. Like it or not, there is something called "separation of powers". The courts won't pass judgment on how a law was passed. Interesting. Food for thought on this topic that applies to current day matters. http://www.politico.com/blogs/joshgerstein/0310/Is_deem__pass_unconstitutional_It_doesnt_matter.html |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/20/2010 7:35:48 AM EDT
[#42]
Remember Sandy Froman? She's the NRA past president who has a huge MG collection. She shot some of them on the Dillon movies.
I always vote for her and one or two others who are MG people. There was one other guy this time that had 'NFA owner' in his profile! I'm going to try to reach her and see if she has the CSPN or if it's in the NRA library. I'm a lifer at GOA and SAF, so I'll ask them, too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/20/2010 7:45:49 AM EDT
[#43]
Quoted:
Remember Sandy Froman? She's the NRA past president who has a huge MG collection. She shot some of them on the Dillon movies. I always vote for her and one or two others who are MG people. There was one other guy this time that had 'NFA owner' in his profile! I'm going to try to reach her and see if she has the CSPN or if it's in the NRA library. I'm a lifer at GOA and SAF, so I'll ask them, too. That would be sweet, get that out there, and watch the back peddling begin |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/20/2010 7:10:58 PM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
I saw on Drudge that C-Span now has all of their archive footage up on a web site. Since there has always been controversy over the Hughes amendment and its voice vote adoption to the FOPA, I thought I would take a look and see if I could find the footage. I am having a hard time finding the date the amendment was passed; but so far I have found this. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/clip.php?appid=556712038 I pretty sure he is talking about the machine gun amendment or the bill itself on that day. Only problem is the video doesn't work yet. Since they are still in the beta stages they might not have uploaded all the footage yet. Keep an eye on it Having seen it real time when it happened, I can assure you there is no controversy. The Nay's clearly had it by a very wide margin, and it gaveled it in anyway. The fix was in. The American people were screwed over. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/20/2010 7:18:46 PM EDT
[#45]
Quoted:
Quoted:
I saw on Drudge that C-Span now has all of their archive footage up on a web site. Since there has always been controversy over the Hughes amendment and its voice vote adoption to the FOPA, I thought I would take a look and see if I could find the footage. I am having a hard time finding the date the amendment was passed; but so far I have found this. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/clip.php?appid=556712038 I pretty sure he is talking about the machine gun amendment or the bill itself on that day. Only problem is the video doesn't work yet. Since they are still in the beta stages they might not have uploaded all the footage yet. Keep an eye on it Having seen it real time when it happened, I can assure you there is no controversy. The Nay's clearly had it by a very wide margin, and it gaveled it in anyway. The fix was in. The American people were screwed over. I've always heard that, and think it's true. Let's prove it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/20/2010 7:51:40 PM EDT
[#46]
Quoted:
Tagged and stuff.... |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/20/2010 7:58:05 PM EDT
[#47]
I would really wonder if this came to the supreme court, if it would be a 5-4 margin for or against allowing MG's again. There are pretty much 5 strict constitutionists and 4 activists on the court at this time. I just wonder how it would play out, and I am kind of surprised no one (ahem NRA) has taken this issue to court. This seems like on of the largest second amendment violations to date in my eyes.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 3/20/2010 7:59:39 PM EDT
[#48]
Quoted: Quoted: I saw on Drudge that C-Span now has all of their archive footage up on a web site. Since there has always been controversy over the Hughes amendment and its voice vote adoption to the FOPA, I thought I would take a look and see if I could find the footage. I am having a hard time finding the date the amendment was passed; but so far I have found this. http://www.c-spanvideo.org/videoLibrary/clip.php?appid=556712038 I pretty sure he is talking about the machine gun amendment or the bill itself on that day. Only problem is the video doesn't work yet. Since they are still in the beta stages they might not have uploaded all the footage yet. Keep an eye on it Having seen it real time when it happened, I can assure you there is no controversy. The Nay's clearly had it by a very wide margin, and it gaveled it in anyway. The fix was in. The American people were screwed over. I've seen the video a long time ago and I could have sworn that it was online. The "nay's" (majority) were screaming "NO!" when they passed it. Man I wish I remembered where I saw it. -X You know what, I thought about it and it might have been just the audio with a still picture shown. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/20/2010 8:00:32 PM EDT
[#49]
Quoted:
I would really wonder if this came to the supreme court, if it would be a 5-4 margin for or against allowing MG's again. There are pretty much 5 strict constitutionists and 4 activists on the court at this time. I just wonder how it would play out, and I am kind of surprised no one (ahem NRA) has taken this issue to court. This seems like on of the largest second amendment violations to date in my eyes. There are 4 strict constructionists, 4 liberal yahoos, and 1 who waffles back and forth. MGs aren't going to happen until there's a strict constructionist majority –– and maybe not even then. |
|
|
|
Posted: 3/20/2010 8:10:28 PM EDT
[#50]
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. I think that is the biggest non-second amendment issue that the courts might one day have to consider. Quite frankly the law is discriminatory to people born after 1968. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
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.
.jpg)
