GET THIS OUT TO EVERYONE YOU CAN THINK OF...

S has HTF

It's 31 pages long if anyone want to read the whole thing you can download it here. I think this is it!!

https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0B769hyKWckIHOGU3OWQ2ODQtMjM1YS00Njg2LTg3MjEtOGJiNzFiNGJiZDgz&hl=en

There is one part of the transcript that has me confused. Can someone explain this!!! The recorded vote shows more NOES than AYES!! Unless I'm looking at something completely different.


AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. HUGHES TO THE AMENDMENT, AS AMENDED, OFFERED BY MR.
VOLKMER AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE OF
A SUBSTITUTE, AS AMENDED

132 Cong.Rec. H1741-06 Page 16 of 31

Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to the amendment offered as a substitute for the
committee amendment in the nature of a substitute.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state it.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, before the amendment is read, I would like to know if the amendment
was one of those printed in the RECORD prior to today.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will so inquire of the gentleman from New Jersey whether his amendment
has been printed in the RECORD?
Mr. HUGHES. It has been printed in the RECORD, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, has it been printed in the RECORD by Mr. HUGHES?
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, it is not required that the sponsor of the amendment have it printed
in the RECORD.
The Clerk will report the amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. HUGHES to the amendment as amended, offered by Mr. VOLKMER as a
substitute for the Judiciary Committee amendment in the nature of a substitute, as amended:
Section 102 of the matter proposed to be inserted is amended-
(1) in paragraph (7), by striking out "and";
(2) in paragraph (8), by striking out the period at the end and inserting in lieu thereof "; and"; and
(3) by adding at the end the following:
(9) by inserting after the subsection added by paragraph (8) of this section the following:
"(o)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), it shall be unlawful for any person to transfer or possess
a machinegun.
"(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to-
"(A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any
department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof; or
"(B) any lawful transfer or lawful possession of a machinegun that was lawfully possessed before the
date this subsection takes effect.".
Section 110 of the matter proposed to be inserted is amended by adding at the end the following:
(c) MACHINEGUN PROHIBITION.-Section 102(9) shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this
Act.
Mr. HUGHES (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be
considered as read and printed in the RECORD.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey?
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
The Clerk continued the reading of the amendment.
Mr. HUGHES (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I renew my request that the amendment be
considerd as read and printed in the RECORD. I ask my colleagues, in all fairness and rationality-we
only have 3 minutes left-to give me an opportunity to explain why machineguns should be banned.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, regular order and reserving the right to object––
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk continued the reading of the amendment.
Mr. HUGHES (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I renew my request for a waiver of the reading of
the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk continued the reading of the amendment.
Mr. HUGHES (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I renew my request for a waiver of the reading of
the amendment. I do not know why anyone would object to the banning of machineguns.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from New Jersey?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is heard.
The Clerk concluded the reading of the amendment.
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Is it the Chair's understanding that the gentleman from New Jersey moves that the
Committee do now rise?
Mr. HUGHES. That is my motion, Mr. Chairman. I move that the Committee do now rise.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the motion offered by the gentleman from New Jersey <Mr.
HUGHES>.
The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes appeared to have it.

RECORDED VOTE
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were-ayes 124, noes 298, not voting 12, as
follows:
<Roll No. 73>


AYES-124
Ackerman Akaka Anderson Annunzio Anthony Aspin Atkins Barnes Bates Beilenson Bennett Berman
Biaggi Boland Bonior (MI) Borski Boxer Broomfield Burton (CA) Carper Clay Collins Conyers Cooper
Coyne Crockett Dellums Dixon Donnelly Downey Durbin Dwyer Dymally Early Edgar Edwards (CA)
Evans (IL) Fascell Fawell Fazio Feighan Foglietta Ford (TN) Frank Garcia Gejdenson Gibbons Gonzalez
Gordon Gray (PA) Green Guarini Hawkins Hayes Henry Hertel Howard Hoyer Hughes Jacobs Kaptur
Kastenmeier Kennelly Kildee Kleczka LaFalce Lehman (CA) Lehman (FL) Leland Levin (MI) Levine (CA)
Lipinski Lowry (WA) Manton Markey Martinez Matsui Mavroules McKinney Mikulski Miller (CA) Miller
(WA) Mineta Moakley Moody Morrison (CT) Mrazek Oakar Owens Porter Price Rangel Rodino Roe
Rostenkowski Roybal Russo Sabo Savage Scheuer Schroeder Schumer Seiberling Smith (FL) Solarz
Spratt St Germain Stark Stratton Studds Torres Torricelli Towns Traficant Udall Vento Visclosky
Walgren Waxman Weiss Wheat Whitehurst Wolpe Yates


NOES-298
Alexander Andrews Applegate Archer Armey AuCoin Badham Barnard Bartlett Barton Bateman Bedell
Bentley Bereuter Bevill Bilirakis Bliley Boehlert Boggs Boner (TN) Bonker Bosco Boucher Breaux
Brooks Brown (CA) Brown (CO) Broyhill Bruce Bryant Burton (IN) Bustamante Byron Callahan
Campbell Carney Carr Chandler Chapman Chappell Chappie Cheney Clinger Coats Cobey Coble Coelho
Coleman (MO) Coleman (TX) Combest Conte Coughlin Courter Craig Crane Daniel Dannemeyer
Darden Daschle Daub Davis de la Garza DeLay Derrick DeWine Dickinson Dicks Dingell DioGuardi
Dorgan (ND) Dornan (CA) Dowdy Dreier Duncan Dyson Eckart (OH) Eckert (NY) Edwards (OK)
Emerson English Erdreich Evans (IA) Fiedler Fields Fish Flippo Florio Foley Ford (MI) Fowler Franklin
Frenzel Frost Fuqua Gallo Gaydos Gekas Gilman Gingrich Glickman Goodling Gradison Gray (IL) Gregg
Gunderson Hall (OH) Hall, Ralph Hamilton Hammerschmidt Hansen Hartnett Hatcher Hefner Hendon
Hiler Hillis Holt Hopkins Horton Hubbard Huckaby Hunter Hutto Hyde Jeffords Jenkins Johnson Jones
(NC) Jones (OK) Jones (TN) Kanjorski Kasich Kemp Kindness Kolbe Kolter Kostmayer Kramer
Lagomarsino Lantos Latta Leach (IA) Leath (TX) Lent Lewis (CA) Lewis (FL) Lightfoot Livingston Lloyd
Loeffler Long Lott Lowery (CA) Luken Lundine Lungren Mack MacKay Madigan Marlenee Martin (IL)
Martin (NY) Mazzoli McCain McCandless McCloskey McCollum McCurdy McDade McEwen McGrath
McHugh McKernan McMillan Meyers Mica Michel Miller (OH) Mitchell Molinari Mollohan Monson
Montgomery Moore Moorhead Morrison (WA) Murphy Murtha Myers Natcher Neal Nelson Nielson
Nowak Oberstar Obey Olin Ortiz Oxley Packard Panetta Parris Pashayan Pease Penny Pepper Perkins
Petri Pickle Pursell Quillen Rahall Ray Regula Reid Richardson Ridge Rinaldo Ritter Roberts Robinson
Roemer Rogers Rose Roth Roukema Rowland (CT) Rowland (GA) Rudd Saxton Schaefer Schneider
Schuette Sensenbrenner Sharp Shaw Shelby Shumway Shuster Sikorski Siljander Sisisky Skeen
Skelton Slattery Slaughter Smith (IA) Smith (NE) Smith (NJ) Smith, Denny (OR) Smith, Robert (NH)
Smith, Robert (OR) Snowe Snyder Solomon Spence Staggers Stallings Stangeland Stenholm Strang
Stump Sundquist Sweeney Swift Swindall Synar Tallon Tauke Tauzin Taylor Thomas (CA) Thomas
(GA) Traxler Valentine Vander Jagt Volkmer Vucanovich Walker Watkins Weaver Weber Whitley
Whittaker Whitten Williams Wilson Wirth Wise Wolf Wortley Wyden Wylie Yatron Young (AK) Young
(FL) Young (MO) Zschau

NOT VOTING-12
Addabbo Boulter Gephardt Grotberg Heftel Ireland Lujan Nichols O'Brien Schulze Stokes Wright


WTF??

UPDATE: over at usacarry.com

Quoted:
Is there anyone that we could possibly send this to in order to challenge it? I don't think the actual transcript had ever been found. Could this possibly be used as new evidence for a person charged with possession of a machine gun to be released of all charges? I mean this is proof isn't it?

It should be available via the National Archives/CSPAN as well as the audio & video which I know reflects the transcript that we are now reading...
Because I watched it & heard it sometime back...

Regarding Hughes Amendment #777 of the so-called FOPA of 1986; I have had discussions at length with a two-well known Constitutional Lawyers on the Second Amendment; one was Alan Gura and you can search this sites archives for related info & my thoughts on that P.O.S. whom is doing us no favors...

The other is fellow Nevadian, Army Ranger, Yale Educated & Respected Constitutional Attorney Stewart Rhodes, whom is also the founder of Oathkeepers...
Oath Keepers Oath Keepers – Guardians of the Republic

I have not had the opportunity to discuss this transcript with him thus-far; but I did discuss possible ways to challenge this particular federal law that is clearly in conflict with the Second Amendment...

He stated the fastest way to git rid of this abomination is to get Congress to Amend/Repeal it...

Hence my suggestion to start getting this in front of as many of the 80 million & counting owners of 270 million & counting firearms and their U.S. Senators and Congressmen/Women...
And as I mentioned in the o/p of this thread; Wayne LaPierre & the NRA need to STEP UP & KEEP THEIR WORD !!!
And thats not going to happen unless we start hammering the NRA, GOA, SAF, JPFO, Guns & Ammo Magazine and others to sh*t or get off the pot...

WE THE PEOPLE have been silent on this issue way too long...

The second way he suggested was to get as many people as possible in different parts of the country (that do not live in a state like California whom has separate, redundant legislation) to concurrently file the form 4 request with the BATFE via your local Class III dealer for a post May 19th, 1986 manufactured weapon such as a Select Fire F/A M-16/M-4 etc...
http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-5320-4.pdf

It will cost you $200.00 just to file the form ... (Refundable upon denial)

In order to get denied by the BATFE so you can challenge at least the 2nd/5th Amendment Constitutionality of USC 18 922 (o) et.al. without breaking the law...
Giving us yet another opportunity to bring this transcript into the public eyes and forefront...

This is consistent with what Heller and others did...

Their mistake was they got Alan Gura Esq. to represent them as did McDonald ...

The First Fundamental Principle of Constitutional Interpretation: Your Rights Don't Come From Government ...
Oath Keepers: CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC 101: YOUR RIGHTS DON’T COME FROM GOVERNMENT

So far I have a couple of people here in Nevada that are willing & able to join me, but obviously we need a more diverse representation of Second Amendment supporters whom realize that if they can ban one complete type/class of firearm they can ban them all; as has been demonstrated over & over again in the history of the world...

We cannot, must not let this stand, regardless of whether or not you have any desire to own a f/a at anytime in your life or not...
Either the Constitution Matters or it does not...

Also yet another reason to get people to read the fricking so-called Firearm Freedom Acts state's like Montana are passing and others are copying...

I should add WAY TOO MANY PEOPLE THINK F/A'S WERE BANNED BY THE 1934 NFA... NOTHING COULD BE FARTHER FROM THE TRUTH...

May 19th, 1986 ... Thank so-called uber-conservative Ronald Reagan and the shenanigans of the 99th U.S. Congress and the NRA dropping the ball for that one ...

Oh snap!!! Let's get this moving people!! Our brothers over at usacarry are willing to file form 4s in order to challenge them once they are denied, lets give them a hand.

http://www.usacarry.com/forums/firearm-politics-2nd-amendment-issues/13682-nationwide-call-action-amend-repeal-challenge-constitutionality-1986-fopa.html

The poll is to let us all know when we have ALL the 9 applicable federal courts covered.

Once we have reached that milestone, we can circle up via pm/otherwise and coordinate the concurrent/simultaneous BATFE Form 4 filings.

Once we have all received our denials, we will begin phase II, challenging the denial(s) in court, also on a concurrent/simultaneous basis. (Circling up via pm/otherwise and coordinating this effort).

At that point perhaps Wayne LaPierre, the NRA will finally keep their word and step up to the plate; and GOA, SAF, JPFO, Guns & Ammo Magazine, et.al. will get off their collective arses and bring some more clout into the fight.

With so-many of us being various tea party members, or knowing tea party members, it would be great to get that kind of national support, as this abomination is yet another side effect of out of control, unchecked big government...

80 Million & Counting Firearm Owners of 270 Million & Counting Firearms in the U.S... WE CAN MAKE THIS HAPPEN !

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority keen to set brush fires in people's minds." - Samuel Adams


We need to spread this further!!

If it's fo time, someone needs to let me know so that I can stop drinking.

Mind=blown

Going to go convert my SKS to full auto now.




(JK, don't shoot my dog)

Somebody please explain this!!!

I'm literally pissing myself right now....

OST

This is interesting.

+1, except I'm not urinating in my pants.

What is there to explain? Who, what, when, where, why? Does it matter? It was unconstitutional no matter how it was passed.

*shrug*

One day they'll put the wrong guy(s) in a position of "nothing left to lose".

Then...maybe.

Tag

Yup. And that is even what wikipedia says about that vote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act

Tagging this one too.

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

taggage

WTF?

Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile

So in!

So is the legal team being let loose?

Federal Lawsuit??

who has the $$$ to take it to court?

so if this is the case a machine gun could be purchased + 200 tax?

Not a tag......

Someone should foward this to the ATF and ask then if it makes the hughes amendment null and void. It'll be entertaining to here the BS excuse they come up with.

better download it before it gets changed...

or made, yes. just like before the ban

NOOOOOO!!!

Tell me this some how this might open the registry for something that might not have been registered from WW 2, but that is still sitting in some old mans basement, please.

You think they don't already know about this? I gaurantee they've had some bullshit technicality made up way in advance.

Sweet Jesus how is this law?

They'll just say it was a transcript error, some clerk reversed the Ayes and Nays.

Heler III, Alan's Revenge?





 

And all the names?



 

so all of these $16,000 machine guns that are transferable "Pre-May" will now be worth the same as any old ar plus the cost of the fire control changes? that will hurt investments...

in on epic.

can I buy a MG at walmart yet?

Perhaps...I'm not sure. All I know is we should spread this to every other gun forum on the internet.

Like I said it appears to have been defeated but I don't know. I don't want to get excited over nothing.

That's the name of the game though. Class three collectors know the risk they take.

that's a risk you take with investments

tag..

is a bad transcript enough to cancel the whole stuff ? I seriously doubt it..

EDIT.. fuck, the names.... what's going on ?

Simpler than that.

Some clerk Just switched the column, oopsie.

So Barbara Boxer/Chucky Schumer voted against it? Bullfuckingshit.

That amendment is a travesty and needs to be struck down.

Any body have access to a LAW LIBRARY??

Well, we elected the ~550 most blatant criminals into the house and senate, and continue to.  That's how it's law.

So the machine gun ban is being chalked up to a fucking "clerical error"

How the hell did this happen?

Tag

Look at the names voting each way, and you'll see compelling evidence this was not the case at all.

I still don't understand what is happening.    

What is happening?

Since when has anyone in DC ever cared about compelling evidence.

I know it is BS, I also know "they" don't care.

Everyone in this thread is getting high on false hope.

I would bet that the USSC would (if it even got that far) simply say that the final bill was passed by both houses of congress and signed by the President.  Whatever means were used to amend it before passage are beyond their scope to criticize and would violate the principle of separation of powers.  Congress makes it's own rules for discussing and amending legislation.

This was obtained from Westlaw an internet law database.

This isn't some typed up transcript.

Yes.  How likely is it that Hughes voted against his own amendment?

Yup.  And, to be honest with you, I don't think I want SCOTUS telling Congress how to do "business".

Seems to me like a lot of excitement that will go nowhere, except MG blue balls.