Quoted:
Added to the FOPA wiki page. Feel free to edit as appropriate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act#See_also

Quoted:


First draft.  Feel free to edit as necessary:

Dear Rep. XXXXX,

    What would you do if you discovered that a law passed by Congress and signed by the President included an amendment that had actually been rejected by the House of Representatives? What would you do if the Congressional Record and the enacted law reflected the exact opposite of the archived video of Congressional debate and vote?  Would you try to rectify the situation even if it is a law that you may like?  As discussed below, there is such a law that includes an amendment that was specifically rejected by the House of Representatives.  Although the amendment was flatly rejected, said amendment was still included in the final legislation.  I want to know what you plan to do about this injustice.

    On April 10, 1986, the House of Representatives voted to pass the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act (FOPA) Pub.L. 99-308, 100 Stat. 449, enacted May 19, 1986, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 921 et seq.  

    During debate, Rep. William Hughes presented an amendment that is now commonly known as the Hughes Amendment.  The House voted down this amendment as seen in this archived video that has been posted to the internet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6Mx2UcSEvQ.  Despite the fact that the House rejected this amendment, Rep. Charles Rangel claimed that it passed and included the amendment in the final version of the bill.

    Below, I quote from the Congressional Record:
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.  (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d099:HR04332:).

    As you can see, the Congressional Record, the enacted law, and the archived video do not agree.  The Hughes Amendment was rejected. Do you think this is the type of representation that your constituents deserve?

    Please contact me at your earliest convenience and inform me what you plan to do to correct this travesty.  Your reputation and the reputations of your fellow Congress members are at stake.

Respectfully,

Pissed off constiuent

Quoted:
Somehow,this needs to hit mainstream media. Anybody try to get Drudge to link to it? Perhaps he'd be up for showing some Rangel jackassery.

 Maybe it'll make him cry but even have Beck show the lack of democracy...not even make a big deal out of guns themselves,just the entirely undemocratic nature of the beast.

Quoted:







So we should do nothing?  attempt nothing?



That defeatist attitude is not what made America great,  but no worries,  there are others that are willing to carry your load and shout it from the rooftops.

Quoted:
Was Robert's Rules adopted as the parlimentary authority for our congress?

If so, what rules specifically were violated? (it is over 700 pages)

Is there precedent for invalidating proceedings that violated the rules?

Quoted:


That is pretty good. I will continue putting mine together too. I think it would be helpful if we had a few different letters.

Quoted:
I would suggest sending this to Volokh and Pajama's Media as well. Let's get the word out.

Quoted:







This is being looked into by people that have a much greater knowledge than I where Roberts Rules are concerned.  However, I can say that Roberts Rules were adopted and in use at the time of this sham.  They've been in use for a VERY long time.  



There are several levels of precedence for invalidating proceedings that violate Roberts Rules.  There are also actions of remedy to address such matters.  This is what we are looking at now.  When I have specifics, I'll post them.

Quoted:


I was gonna say it but i was trying to be nice...
 

Quoted:
Someone that actually understands the intricacies of what happened in the video needs to put together a step by step summary. I am a pretty intelligent guy but I haven't seen an explanation in this thread sufficiently detailing what happened. Referencing time marks in the video would be very helpful when explaining the details.

No one wants to sift through 15 pages and spend hours trying to piece it all together. So, if someone could detail it out in easy to understand succinct language, then you'd have a much better chance of getting the story out and getting people interested and involved. After you do this, I would recommend starting a new thread with the original post being the summary and details of exactly went wrong in that video. Then people could take that and copy it and post it on numerous other message-boards or email it, vs. sifting through 15 pages trying to find the details.

Quoted:
Someone that actually understands the intricacies of what happened in the video needs to put together a step by step summary. I am a pretty intelligent guy but I haven't seen an explanation in this thread sufficiently detailing what happened. Referencing time marks in the video would be very helpful when explaining the details.

No one wants to sift through 15 pages and spend hours trying to piece it all together. So, if someone could detail it out in easy to understand succinct language, then you'd have a much better chance of getting the story out and getting people interested and involved. After you do this, I would recommend starting a new thread with the original post being the summary and details of exactly went wrong in that video. Then people could take that and copy it and post it on numerous other message-boards or email it, vs. sifting through 15 pages trying to find the details.

Quoted:


AJAX22 does a nice editorial breakdown of the transcript on page 5 (which I saved)
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=1013300&page=5

AJAX22...thanks!

Quoted:
Okay folks, I'm currently stirring up a shit storm.  Everyone download that video if you can and hang on to it.  I expect it'll be pulled soon.  We must retain copies of this everywhere.  I just got off the phone with a Congressperson who is going to discuss this with the Speaker of the House today.  There is an avenue of approach to have this removed on the basis of how Rangel violated Roberts Rules.  

There are people who have lost their freedom, their Rights and their lives over this bullshit.  Rangel has no fucking excuse for what he has done... none at all.  He needs to step down right fucking now.  24 years....   for 24 years this sham has been forced upon us.  One way or another, the Hughes Amendment is going to die.

Quoted:


We have avenues of attack with this.  It's not going to be pretty and Congress would do well to repeal it before a LOT of people on both sides of the isle are strung up with very uncomfortable questions.  

If Rangel was smart, he'd demand a repeal before we use this to totally ass rape any chance of his re-election in the future.

Quoted:


What can we do to help you ?
 

Quoted:


Do you really think his constituents care about gun bans?

Quoted:
With all of the hits that Prince Law is getting with their blog we should pass it along to them as well.

Quoted:

Quoted:


That is not gonna cut it. Most people have a very short attention span for things they do not understand. You have to provide a brief overview of the situation using language that anyone can understand. First you have to provide a 3 or 4 sentence executive summary of what the issue is. Then you have to very succinctly and briefly backup the executive summary with a high-level summary of the evidence. Basically we need an executive summary of 3 or 4 sentences. Then no more than 4 paragraphs explaining what happened in the video. That's it. Pretend you have 3 minutes on an elevator to get someone interested in this. Then once you get people interested, then they can investigate it further and in more detail with the links you provide to the supporting evidence.

Quoted:
Rangel pauses before dropping the gavel and someone is heard saying "Let it go, let it go." The gavel drops and someone asks for a recorded vote.

Quoted:
Kinda makes you wonder how many other bills and laws have been passed like this.

Quoted:







My understanding is that there was an issue in 1986, but that it was not really discussed by the media.  And with no internet or talk radio, it died.



ETA: According to my roommate (who was a House page in 2002 and knows procedure well), as for adopting the amendment, there was only a yea or nay vote.  The chair/speaker refused to acknowledge the request for a roll call vote.  The ball, again, was dropped when the floor voted to adopt the Volker substitution.

Quoted:


Murtha did something similar.

Quoted:







Still looking for complete copy but here is a summary:



http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d099:HR04332:



What's shocking is this under amendments:








Here's the thing... the video and transcripts are proof that it didn't.... the entire recorded vote was ignored completely.



Talk about massive failure. Corruption knows no bounds... the thing is completely unconstitutional. In my opinion as an American citizen (which apparently doesn't mean much anymore) the amendment never passed and is invalid.

Quoted:







I want the wife to address some of this to clarify and I may be wrong here but I believe that since Roberts Rules were violated with the amendment roll call vote being ignored, basically Roberts Rules being abandoned without a vote... it may be possible to address now.  I don't know though since the proper way was attempted and shot down.  Basically, if someone puts a motion out, it must be addressed either by a second or by the chair.  The chair ignored the motion for a roll call vote and never gave the chance for a second.  Given this, it's possible that we may be able to attack this on that level.  



As it stands, due to the violation of Roberts Rules by Rangel, the MG ban technically is invalid.  Now, we just have to see if Congress will address this matter or if they view voted upon procedures just a convenience when they want them to be and ignore them the rest of the time.  If the latter, we have a serious problem that will have to be addressed.  If the former, we have a very real chance of having the MG ban removed.  



Either way, Congress needs to address this matter and fast.  I intend on ruining some people with this footage if they don't address it.

Quoted:
Based on the interpretation from the NRA letter I linked above, it appears that the NRA believes the massive "no" vote was to shoot down the motion by Hughes to postpone consideration of the entire FOPA.  

The tragedy then occurs at 8:20 when Rangel accepts his interpretation of the voice vote and doesn't allow the recorded vote.  Funny how his interpretation of every other voice vote was dead wrong.