86 machine gun ban vote : Video page on 11 - Page 3

General » General Discussion

Site Notices

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - 86 machine gun ban vote : Video page on 11 (Page 3 of 27)

Posted: 5/6/2010 2:42:02 PM EDT

[#1]

I videoed CSPAN. They were presenting the committee proceedings in April when Hughes presented his amendment.

The nra could have taped it as well, if they had wanted to. They should have 24/7 tape rolling on congress, if they cared at all about gun-related stuff getting slipped in.

nra sucks.

Posted: 5/6/2010 3:17:35 PM EDT

[#2]

What's with all the NRA bashing?
I agree they compromise more than I'd like, but they are the best defence we have.

Posted: 5/6/2010 3:34:01 PM EDT

[#3]

Quoted:
What's with all the NRA bashing?
I agree they compromise more than I'd like, but they are the best defence we have.

BZZZZZTTTT!!! WRONG!!!

If you wand to "DEFEND" you 2A rights, donate to a lawyer or group actively fighting a 2A case.

http://www.mtssa.org/
http://www.hellerfoundation.org/

Best part is you can pick the battles you fight.

The NRA was great pre internet when the average person couldn't look up active 2A court cases.

IMHO the NRA is strictly a counter Brady org. With out Brady lobbyists we don't need the NRA lobbyists.

Posted: 5/6/2010 3:40:59 PM EDT

[#4]

Quoted:

After passage of the FOPA, a law-abiding Georgian named Farmer applied for the registration of a fully-automatic firearm manufactured after May 19, 1986, but his application was rejected by BATF. Farmer contended that BATF's interpretation of the measure as a prohibition on possession of fully-automatic firearms manufactured after May 19, 1986 was incorrect, since the law exempted fully-automatic firearms newly-manufactured under the authority of the United States, thus it would exempt firearms approved for registration by BATF. Farmer also questioned whether Congress had the power, under the Constitution, to ban the mere possession of a type of firearm and whether the exercise of any such power would violate the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Georgia ruled in Farmer's favor. On appeal by the federal government, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the decision with respect to BATF's interpretation, but did not rule on the constitutional issues raised. The NRA's Firearms Civil Rights Legal Defense Fund asked the Supreme Court of the United States to review the case. The Court declined, as it does the vast majority of cases. Thus the decision stands in the Eleventh Circuit, which encompasses Alabama, Florida and Georgia.

Court decisions invalidating parts of the National Firearms Act

Rock Island Armory was charged with manufacturing "machineguns" in 1987 and 1988 in violation of the registration requirements of the National Firearms Act. In U. S. v. Rock Island Armory, Inc. (773 F. Supp. 117, C.D. Ill. 1991), the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois dismissed those charges because the NFA sections upon which they were based were "without any constitutional basis." The judge noted that the Supreme Court had previously ruled that the NFA's registration requirement was constitutional only because it was enacted for the purpose of facilitating the collection of tax revenue. Thus, he concluded, because the Hughes Amendment had been interpreted as prohibiting the possession of fully-automatic firearms manufactured after May 19, 1986, the NFA's registration requirement no longer served its tax collection purpose. The judge said that since "Congress has no enumerated power to require registration of firearms," the constitutional basis for the NFA registration provision no longer existed. The government initiated an appeal of the decision, but later requested that the appeal be dismissed, thus the Rock Island decision stands. In U.S. v. Dalton (960 F.2d 121, 10th Cir. 1992), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit adopted the Rock Island precedent.

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/factsheets/read.aspx?ID=130

What are the implications of the Farmer case?

So if you are allowed to manufacture NFA items, you don't have to register them?

Posted: 5/6/2010 3:43:17 PM EDT

[#5]

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,

Posted: 5/6/2010 3:47:42 PM EDT

[#6]

Quoted:

I videoed CSPAN. They were presenting the committee proceedings in April when Hughes presented his amendment.

The nra could have taped it as well, if they had wanted to. They should have 24/7 tape rolling on congress, if they cared at all about gun-related stuff getting slipped in.

nra sucks.

Again, Rep. William Hughes presented his amendment during the House floor debate, not any committee proceeding.

Read David Hardy's previously cited Columbia Law Review article. The floor debate was short, sharp and furious. There's your details (and note the lack of "legislative history" on the Hughes amendment as regards records of the debate).

Before C-SPAN there was (and is) the Congressional Record. Even though it gets edited, its the official record of Congress. Not C-SPAN.

There was no Internet to rally people to call their representatives or senators. There were no cell phones (okay, there were "mobile telephones" in cars) to send out emergency calls. No Twitter, etc.

Nobody was thinking about preserving the debate for something they weren't expecting. Volkmer didn't call up the NRA and say "hey, I got enough votes its going to the floor!"

And the FOPA floor debate was hardly the most critical firearms vote. I'd say the 1934 NFA, the 1938 FFA, the GCA '68, the 1994 AWB were all more critical. The vast majority of shooters got way more out of the FOPA than they lost with 992(o)

Posted: 5/6/2010 5:41:26 PM EDT

[#7]

Quoted:

Quoted:
I videoed CSPAN. They were presenting the committee proceedings in April when Hughes presented his amendment.

The nra could have taped it as well, if they had wanted to. They should have 24/7 tape rolling on congress, if they cared at all about gun-related stuff getting slipped in.

nra sucks.

Again, Rep. William Hughes presented his amendment during the House floor debate, not any committee proceeding.

Read David Hardy's previously cited Columbia Law Review article. The floor debate was short, sharp and furious. There's your details (and note the lack of "legislative history" on the Hughes amendment as regards records of the debate).

Before C-SPAN there was (and is) the Congressional Record. Even though it gets edited, its the official record of Congress. Not C-SPAN.

There was no Internet to rally people to call their representatives or senators. There were no cell phones (okay, there were "mobile telephones" in cars) to send out emergency calls. No Twitter, etc.

Nobody was thinking about preserving the debate for something they weren't expecting. Volkmer didn't call up the NRA and say "hey, I got enough votes its going to the floor!"

And the FOPA floor debate was hardly the most critical firearms vote. I'd say the 1934 NFA, the 1938 FFA, the GCA '68, the 1994 AWB were all more critical. The vast majority of shooters got way more out of the FOPA than they lost with 992(o)

Then...........now not so much.

Posted: 5/6/2010 6:23:06 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:

Quoted: [snipped]. The vast majority of shooters got way more out of the FOPA than they lost with 992(o)

Then...........now not so much.

That's because people are so used to the significant improvements of the '86 FOPA that they just think that's the way it always was.

That M16 I might have been able to buy for $500 plus the $200 transfer in 1986 would cost around $1400 today.

People weren't buying them in droves then and I don't think the average shooters would be buying them in droves now. There's a reason there's only around 150,000 on the National Firearms Registry.

That's ~150K counting those purchased since before 1934, minus whatever percentage that were abandoned to the ATF, destroyed, never registered and seized, etc.

Not much demand. On the other hand, Winchester made 7.5 million Model 94s

Posted: 5/6/2010 6:42:14 PM EDT

[#9]

Whole states like NY and CA where no MGs were allowed, scumbag CLEOs that won't sign, 1 year wait, etc. That's why so few were F4ed.

Posted: 5/6/2010 7:04:07 PM EDT

[#10]

Quoted:

Quoted: [snipped]. The vast majority of shooters got way more out of the FOPA than they lost with 992(o)

Then...........now not so much.

That's because people are so used to the significant improvements of the '86 FOPA that they just think that's the way it always was.

Only improvements over GCA68. People always seem to gloss over that fact; FOPA86 wasn't correcting long-standing wrongs, but was rather attempting to partially un-fuck fucked-up that was less than two decades old. It's not like it was addressing wrongs from NFA34.

ETA - Basically, the point is that people always seem to focus on the idea that "FOPA=good" rather than the much more serious matter (and absolute fact) of "GCA=bad".

Posted: 5/7/2010 6:48:05 AM EDT

[#11]

Quoted:

Whole states like NY and CA where no MGs were allowed, scumbag CLEOs that won't sign, 1 year wait, etc. That's why so few were F4ed.

Actually CA was very MG-friendly for a long time. The CA DOJ stopped issuing state MG permits to non-movie industry applicants sometime after their "assault weapons" shenanigans started.

The real reasons (other than state laws) that MGs tend to be concentrated in certain areas - both demographically and geographically) are two-fold (IMO).

Price (including the cost of feeding them) and a place to shoot.

Even if I could hornswoggle my fascist Democratic CLEO into defying the anti-freedom progressive Marxist Democrat state AG and issuing me a MG permit, I'd still need a place to shoot it. No ranges anywhere near me allow automatic fire (by privately -owned MGs) so I'd have to buy the land to shoot it on. That ain't gonna be cheap and adds to the price.

Now, if I lived in, say, Nevada - where I could shoot in the desert - might plunk down the coin for a $16K M16 (or even a relatively cheap MAC or STEN) and the ammo to hose through it.

On the other hand, other than wasting ammo for fun or the historical value (which makes it a safe queen) what's the purpose of an MG?

Fun is a definite purpose. Owning historical cool shit is a purpose. But what can I do with a M16 that I can't do just as effectively with a SBR'd AR15?

Suppressive fire on the 100-yard target at the range?

You lust for a happy switch on a newly manufactured MG because you can't have one. So do I.

But even if 922(o) magically disappeared tomorrow I probably wouldn't buy one. I had multiple chances before 1986. At one point (1980) my wife gave me $5K from her grandmother's estate and I held a $2000 MP38/40 in my hand at a SOT 03s... and he said he'd take $1500 cash... I didn't buy it. Or the $250 MAC 10 he had.

Posted: 5/7/2010 9:43:15 AM EDT

[#12]

I really can't see the point in the MG ban. I could be mistaken, but I don't think I've heard of any crimes being committed with registered MG's.

I guess it's true... They don't want us peasants to be armed.

Posted: 5/7/2010 9:54:09 AM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:

Quoted:

Whole states like NY and CA where no MGs were allowed, scumbag CLEOs that won't sign, 1 year wait, etc. That's why so few were F4ed.

Actually CA was very MG-friendly for a long time. The CA DOJ stopped issuing state MG permits to non-movie industry applicants sometime after their "assault weapons" shenanigans started.

The real reasons (other than state laws) that MGs tend to be concentrated in certain areas - both demographically and geographically) are two-fold (IMO).

Price (including the cost of feeding them) and a place to shoot.

Even if I could hornswoggle my fascist Democratic CLEO into defying the anti-freedom progressive Marxist Democrat state AG and issuing me a MG permit, I'd still need a place to shoot it. No ranges anywhere near me allow automatic fire (by privately -owned MGs) so I'd have to buy the land to shoot it on. That ain't gonna be cheap and adds to the price.

Now, if I lived in, say, Nevada - where I could shoot in the desert - might plunk down the coin for a $16K M16 (or even a relatively cheap MAC or STEN) and the ammo to hose through it.

On the other hand, other than wasting ammo for fun or the historical value (which makes it a safe queen) what's the purpose of an MG?

Fun is a definite purpose. Owning historical cool shit is a purpose. But what can I do with a M16 that I can't do just as effectively with a SBR'd AR15?

Suppressive fire on the 100-yard target at the range?

You lust for a happy switch on a newly manufactured MG because you can't have one. So do I.

But even if 922(o) magically disappeared tomorrow I probably wouldn't buy one. I had multiple chances before 1986. At one point (1980) my wife gave me $5K from her grandmother's estate and I held a $2000 MP38/40 in my hand at a SOT 03s... and he said he'd take $1500 cash... I didn't buy it. Or the $250 MAC 10 he had.

I want one bad. And yes, largely because I can't have one. But I'm not going to fool myself into thinking they are useless or that it would sit in the safe all the time just so I feel better about not being ale to afford one or not wanting to deal with the red tape and CLEO requirement.

Posted: 5/7/2010 9:54:58 AM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:

Quoted:

The vast majority of shooters got way more out of the FOPA than they lost with 992(o)

Then...........now not so much.

+1

Most of FOPA value is gone today.

The first problem is 80% of the FFLs in 1986 were forced out-of-business a few years later. There is a sad irony to that.

Then lots of states ban many of the FOPA goodies - gun shows, mail order ammo, buying out of state. So those benefits are lost.

Posted: 5/7/2010 10:06:18 AM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
I really can't see the point in the MG ban. I could be mistaken, but I don't think I've heard of any crimes being committed with registered MG's.

I guess it's true... They don't want us peasants to be armed.

I know of at least two, oddly enough, both were M11A1s. (iirc)

EDIT (confirming my memory): http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcfullau.html

"In 1995 there were over 240,000 machine guns registered with the BATF. (Zawitz, Marianne,Bureau of Justice Statistics, Guns Used in Crime [PDF].) About half are owned by civilians and the other half by police departments and other governmental agencies (Gary Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, Walter de Gruyter, Inc., New York, 1997.)

Since 1934, there appear to have been at least two homicides committed with legally owned automatic weapons. One was a murder committed by a law enforcement officer (as opposed to a civilian). On September 15th, 1988, a 13-year veteran of the Dayton, Ohio police department, Patrolman Roger Waller, then 32, used his fully automatic MAC-11 .380 caliber submachine gun to kill a police informant, 52-year-old Lawrence Hileman. Patrolman Waller pleaded guilty in 1990, and he and an accomplice were sentenced to 18 years in prison. The 1986 'ban' on sales of new machine guns does not apply to purchases by law enforcement or government agencies.
––-
Thanks to the staff of the Columbus, Ohio Public Library for the details of the Waller case.

Source: talk.politics.guns FAQ, part 2.

The other homicide, possibly involving a legally owned machine gun, occurred on September 14, 1992, also in Ohio (source). "

Posted: 5/7/2010 10:32:31 AM EDT

[#16]

Quoted:

Quoted:

The vast majority of shooters got way more out of the FOPA than they lost with 992(o)

Then...........now not so much.

+1

Most of FOPA value is gone today.

The first problem is 80% of the FFLs in 1986 were forced out-of-business a few years later. There is a sad irony to that.

Then lots of states ban many of the FOPA goodies - gun shows, mail order ammo, buying out of state. So those benefits are lost.

The states that "banned the FOPA goodies" (like California is doing with mail-order ammo) aren't going to let you own a machine gun. What "FOPA goodies" have you lost in Texas?

If you guys want to get all butt-hurt about a law, get butt-hurt about the Gun Control Act of 1968.

That was an evil game-changer. Before GCA '68 I could have mail-ordered a 20mm Solothurn anti-tank gun! Or any of the cheap military surplus rifles (bolt and semi) and pistols that filled the ads in gun magazines... And ammo! No silly C&R or going through an FFL. Mr. Postman just brought it to your door (or REA, but the kids don't remember REA).

And I could have gotten an FFL for a $1 and not had to "engage in the business"! Or do private FTF sales to anyone and not care if they were a "prohibited person" or if they even lived in my state.

Or walk into any place in the US and buy a pistol (by the local laws, but other than that).

Or find a MG and walk into the ATF and say "can you help me put this on the Registry" and they would (instead of stomping you down)... even better, you'd be out shooting your Daddy's unregistered WWII bring back MG and the friendly ATF agent at the next firing point would say "want me to get that on the Registry for you?". And he would!

Or fly with a gun and have it in the cabin with you (not checked).

Except I was 14.

Then three political assassinations ruined it for everyone. And one of the most pro-gun Senators made it happen.

And ya'll think the Hughes Amendment was the most horrible thing ever?

Posted: 5/7/2010 10:46:45 AM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:

Quoted:

The vast majority of shooters got way more out of the FOPA than they lost with 992(o)

Then...........now not so much.

+1

Most of FOPA value is gone today.

The first problem is 80% of the FFLs in 1986 were forced out-of-business a few years later. There is a sad irony to that.

Then lots of states ban many of the FOPA goodies - gun shows, mail order ammo, buying out of state. So those benefits are lost.

The states that "banned the FOPA goodies" (like California is doing with mail-order ammo) aren't going to let you own a machine gun. What "FOPA goodies" have you lost in Texas?

If you guys want to get all butt-hurt about a law, get butt-hurt about the Gun Control Act of 1968.

That was an evil game-changer. Before GCA '68 I could have mail-ordered a 20mm Solothurn anti-tank gun! Or any of the cheap military surplus rifles (bolt and semi) and pistols that filled the ads in gun magazines... And ammo! No silly C&R or going through an FFL. Mr. Postman just brought it to your door (or REA, but the kids don't remember REA).

And I could have gotten an FFL for a $1 and not had to "engage in the business"! Or do private FTF sales to anyone and not care if they were a "prohibited person" or if they even lived in my state.

Or walk into any place in the US and buy a pistol (by the local laws, but other than that).

Or find a MG and walk into the ATF and say "can you help me put this on the Registry" and they would (instead of stomping you down)... even better, you'd be out shooting your Daddy's unregistered WWII bring back MG and the friendly ATF agent at the next firing point would say "want me to get that on the Registry for you?". And he would!

Or fly with a gun and have it in the cabin with you (not checked).

Except I was 14.

Then three political assassinations ruined it for everyone. And one of the most pro-gun Senators made it happen.

And ya'll think the Hughes Amendment was the most horrible thing ever?

Man that whole post is depressing. And I'm only 22.

Posted: 5/7/2010 10:54:25 AM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:

Quoted:

The vast majority of shooters got way more out of the FOPA than they lost with 992(o)

Then...........now not so much.

+1

Most of FOPA value is gone today.

The first problem is 80% of the FFLs in 1986 were forced out-of-business a few years later. There is a sad irony to that.

Then lots of states ban many of the FOPA goodies - gun shows, mail order ammo, buying out of state. So those benefits are lost.

What "FOPA goodies" have you lost in Texas?

None, that is why I moved from a state that banned FOPA goodies to Texas. But not everyone can do that (though it seems like they are trying).

Originally
Posted By ODA_564:

That
was an evil game-changer. Before GCA '68 I could have mail-ordered a
20mm Solothurn anti-tank gun!

Not legally, as that is a DD per NFA34.

Or find a MG and walk into the
ATF and say "can you help me put this on the Registry" and they would (instead of stomping
you down)... even better, you'd be out shooting your Daddy's
unregistered WWII bring back MG and the friendly ATF agent at the next
firing point would say "want me to get that on the Registry for you?".
And he would!

No they would not as ATF did not exist and the IRS would not help you either as it was illegal unregistered MG per NFA34.

Ironically the GCA68 offered the amnesty to allow that.

But yes your point things were better pre-68 is true. They were even better pre-34.

Posted: 5/7/2010 11:26:16 AM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:

Quoted: [snipped]. The vast majority of shooters got way more out of the FOPA than they lost with 992(o)

Then...........now not so much.

That's because people are so used to the significant improvements of the '86 FOPA that they just think that's the way it always was.

That M16 I might have been able to buy for $500 plus the $200 transfer in 1986 would cost around $1400 today.

People weren't buying them in droves then and I don't think the average shooters would be buying them in droves now. There's a reason there's only around 150,000 on the National Firearms Registry.

That's ~150K counting those purchased since before 1934, minus whatever percentage that were abandoned to the ATF, destroyed, never registered and seized, etc.

Not much demand. On the other hand, Winchester made 7.5 million Model 94s

there weren't many AR15's in folk's hands then either, and now it's the most popular firearm in america. the MG owning community would be enormous today if it were allowed to be.

the existance of cheap and legal machineguns kept all other guns safe from bans. furthermore, many of the protections provided by FOPA are *STILL* ignored by the same states who necessitated it in the first place.

Posted: 5/7/2010 11:28:05 AM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
*snip*

But what can I do with a M16 that I can't do just as effectively with a SBR'd AR15?

*snip*

the answer to that is pretty obvious.

Posted: 5/7/2010 12:09:33 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:

Or find a MG and walk into the ATF and say "can you help me put this on the Registry" and they would (instead of stomping you down)... even better, you'd be out shooting your Daddy's unregistered WWII bring back MG and the friendly ATF agent at the next firing point would say "want me to get that on the Registry for you?". And he would!

No they would not as ATF did not exist and the IRS would not help you either as it was illegal unregistered MG per NFA34.

Ironically the GCA68 offered the amnesty to allow that.

But yes your point things were better pre-68 is true. They were even better pre-34.

IIRC, Before GCA 1968, I thought NFA only covered firearms crossing state lines. you could legally possess an NFA item without registration, but crossing state lines violated said law.

Posted: 5/7/2010 12:20:27 PM EDT

[#22]

Quoted:

Quoted:

The vast majority of shooters got way more out of the FOPA than they lost with 992(o)

Then...........now not so much.

+1

Most of FOPA value is gone today.

The first problem is 80% of the FFLs in 1986 were forced out-of-business a few years later. There is a sad irony to that.

Then lots of states ban many of the FOPA goodies - gun shows, mail order ammo, buying out of state. So those benefits are lost.

If you guys want to get all butt-hurt about a law, get butt-hurt about the Gun Control Act of 1968.

You can get 922o repealed you will never repeal the GCA and background checks.

Posted: 5/7/2010 12:23:13 PM EDT

[#23]

Quoted:

Quoted: [snipped]. The vast majority of shooters got way more out of the FOPA than they lost with 992(o)

Then...........now not so much.

That's because people are so used to the significant improvements of the '86 FOPA that they just think that's the way it always was.

That M16 I might have been able to buy for $500 plus the $200 transfer in 1986 would cost around $1400 today.

People weren't buying them in droves then and I don't think the average shooters would be buying them in droves now. There's a reason there's only around 150,000 on the National Firearms Registry.

That's ~150K counting those purchased since before 1934, minus whatever percentage that were abandoned to the ATF, destroyed, never registered and seized, etc.

Not much demand. On the other hand, Winchester made 7.5 million Model 94s

Well no fucking shit there was no demand. Look at the insane process and expense you had to go through!

Posted: 5/7/2010 12:33:40 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:

Quoted:

The vast majority of shooters got way more out of the FOPA than they lost with 992(o)

Then...........now not so much.

+1

Most of FOPA value is gone today.

The first problem is 80% of the FFLs in 1986 were forced out-of-business a few years later. There is a sad irony to that.

Then lots of states ban many of the FOPA goodies - gun shows, mail order ammo, buying out of state. So those benefits are lost.

What "FOPA goodies" have you lost in Texas?

None, that is why I moved from a state that banned FOPA goodies to Texas. But not everyone can do that (though it seems like they are trying).

Quoted:

That was an evil game-changer. Before GCA '68 I could have mail-ordered a 20mm Solothurn anti-tank gun!

Not legally, as that is a DD per NFA34.

Or find a MG and walk into the ATF and say "can you help me put this on the Registry" and they would (instead of stomping you down)... even better, you'd be out shooting your Daddy's unregistered WWII bring back MG and the friendly ATF agent at the next firing point would say "want me to get that on the Registry for you?". And he would!

No they would not as ATF did not exist and the IRS would not help you either as it was illegal unregistered MG per NFA34.

Ironically the GCA68 offered the amnesty to allow that.

But yes your point things were better pre-68 is true. They were even better pre-34.

Sorry, compadre. There were no DD NFA category prior to GCA '68. It amended the NFA and added the category of DD (did you read the Columbia Law Review article by David Hardy I posted? http://www.guncite.com/journals/hardfopa.html Have you seen the pre-68 advertisements that have been posted here?). Senator Dodd introduced the concept of the DD in his Senate bill S.90 which was what became the GCA '68.

There was no CLEO sign-off requirement for NFA items (Form 1 or 4) before GCA '68.

This one is from 1957. Order it COD ($40 deposit) and its delivered to your house. You could have owned a 240mm "Atomic Cannon" before GCA '68 - and have it mail-ordered to your door (if you could have found one).

And ask Dr. Dater of Gemtech (or read his multi-issue interview in Small Arms Review) or read any of the articles about the Class III old-timers in Small Arms Review about what the pre-GCA'68 ATU was like. Those interviews are full of examples of the ATU helping people get their MGs on the registry. Were you alive then? I was. I had a neighbor in 1967 who took his unregistered (untaxed?) Brazilian INA MB 50 .45 ACP SMG into the ATU office in DC and walked out with a Form 4 (he'd been an exchange officer with the Brazilian Army's ordnance school and had acquired it there).

You are right that a unit of the IRS enforced the NFA '34and FFA '38. It was the Alcohol and Tobacco Unit's function from 1942 (enforcement) / 1952 (all functions) to 1968, then it became the ATF. Most people refer to the pre-68 ATU as the ATF because people know what the ATF is (and its the BATFE now).

National dismay over the weaponry wielded so conspicuously by organized crime during Prohibition led to passage in 1934 of the National Firearms Act, followed in four years by the Federal Firearms Act. The newly regulated articles might be firearms, but taxes were involved as ever. The Miscellaneous Tax Unit, Bureau of Internal Revenue, collected the fees. In 1942 enforcement duties for the “Firearms Program” fell to the
, which was accustomed to managing controversial industries. In a major Internal Revenue reorganization of 1952, the nearly-century-old Miscellaneous Tax Unit was dismantled. Its firearms and tobacco tax responsibilities went to the
. The Bureau of Internal Revenue became the )[/span]</a> we know today. Acknowledging a portion of
’s new burden,
renamed it the Alcohol and Tobacco Tax Division. This incarnation lasted until 1968 passage of the Gun Control Act, which gave to the laboratory, among other things, responsibility for explosives. The division title shifted to Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (
) Division. Title XI of the Organized Crime Control Act in 1970 (Title XI) formalized
Division explosives expertise. In the same year, moved by a growing perception that the
’s revenue-collecting bias did not reflect
Division’s enforcement skills, overtures began toward
independence.

[span style='BACKGROUND-COLOR: #cecece']http://www.atf.gov/about/history/atf-from-1789-1998.html[/span]

Posted: 5/7/2010 12:39:13 PM EDT

[#25]

Quoted:

Quoted: [snipped]. The vast majority of shooters got way more out of the FOPA than they lost with 992(o)

Then...........now not so much.

That's because people are so used to the significant improvements of the '86 FOPA that they just think that's the way it always was.

That M16 I might have been able to buy for $500 plus the $200 transfer in 1986 would cost around $1400 today.

People weren't buying them in droves then and I don't think the average shooters would be buying them in droves now. There's a reason there's only around 150,000 on the National Firearms Registry.

That's ~150K counting those purchased since before 1934, minus whatever percentage that were abandoned to the ATF, destroyed, never registered and seized, etc.

Not much demand. On the other hand, Winchester made 7.5 million Model 94s

Well no fucking shit there was no demand. Look at the insane process and expense you had to go through!

And its so much easier now?

The only thing that's changed (for people who live ins states where they can own MGs) is the price. And there's technically more MG states (CA is technically an MG state).

Posted: 5/7/2010 12:42:13 PM EDT

[#26]

Quoted:

Quoted: [snipped]. The vast majority of shooters got way more out of the FOPA than they lost with 992(o)

Then...........now not so much.

That's because people are so used to the significant improvements of the '86 FOPA that they just think that's the way it always was.

That M16 I might have been able to buy for $500 plus the $200 transfer in 1986 would cost around $1400 today.

People weren't buying them in droves then and I don't think the average shooters would be buying them in droves now. There's a reason there's only around 150,000 on the National Firearms Registry.

That's ~150K counting those purchased since before 1934, minus whatever percentage that were abandoned to the ATF, destroyed, never registered and seized, etc.

Not much demand. On the other hand, Winchester made 7.5 million Model 94s

Well no fucking shit there was no demand. Look at the insane process and expense you had to go through!

And its so much easier now?

The only thing that's changed (for people who live ins states where they can own MGs) is the price. And there's technically more MG states (CA is technically an MG state).

You cant buy new ones.

Posted: 5/7/2010 12:42:32 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:

Quoted:

The vast majority of shooters got way more out of the FOPA than they lost with 992(o)

Then...........now not so much.

+1

Most of FOPA value is gone today.

The first problem is 80% of the FFLs in 1986 were forced out-of-business a few years later. There is a sad irony to that.

Then lots of states ban many of the FOPA goodies - gun shows, mail order ammo, buying out of state. So those benefits are lost.

If you guys want to get all butt-hurt about a law, get butt-hurt about the Gun Control Act of 1968.

You can get 922o repealed you will never repeal the GCA and background checks.

I respect that you believe you can get 922(o) repealed. When you've got a majority of the House and Senate ready to vote for 'legal machine guns' I'll contribute bucks for it.

Or, if you can get the Supreme Court to take a 922(o) case - of course, you might have to go to prision first... - I'll contribute.

Alan Gura told me it was the longest of long shots (and he brought us the Heller victory).

Posted: 5/7/2010 12:46:14 PM EDT

[#28]

Quoted:

Quoted: [snipped]. The vast majority of shooters got way more out of the FOPA than they lost with 992(o)

Then...........now not so much.

That's because people are so used to the significant improvements of the '86 FOPA that they just think that's the way it always was.

That M16 I might have been able to buy for $500 plus the $200 transfer in 1986 would cost around $1400 today.

People weren't buying them in droves then and I don't think the average shooters would be buying them in droves now. There's a reason there's only around 150,000 on the National Firearms Registry.

That's ~150K counting those purchased since before 1934, minus whatever percentage that were abandoned to the ATF, destroyed, never registered and seized, etc.

Not much demand. On the other hand, Winchester made 7.5 million Model 94s

Well no fucking shit there was no demand. Look at the insane process and expense you had to go through!

And its so much easier now?

The only thing that's changed (for people who live ins states where they can own MGs) is the price. And there's technically more MG states (CA is technically an MG state).

You cant buy new ones.

Actually, you can - "new old stock". Stemple tube guns (if they haven't sold out). Tubes that were Form 2'd back in 1986 and sat on a rack. Pretty good prices on them (if there are any left).

Posted: 5/7/2010 12:48:16 PM EDT

[#29]

There is only a finite level of MG's available to people who are not SOT's

And what I was stressing is it would be easier to undo 922o than the GCA,

Posted: 5/7/2010 12:52:19 PM EDT

[#30]

Quoted:

Quoted:

They spend millions on some gun range for harry reid to shoot on, but never taped the most important gun discussions of the last 25 years, the '86 gun bill?

Hard to tell in advance what is important.

No... not really. I'd say it was pretty obvious.

Posted: 5/7/2010 12:56:29 PM EDT

[#31]

tag for later

Posted: 5/7/2010 12:57:21 PM EDT

[#32]

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.

Could you hypothetically submit whatever form it is to manufacture a machine gun, and then sue when it is denied?

Posted: 5/7/2010 1:26:16 PM EDT

[#33]

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.

Could you hypothetically submit whatever form it is to manufacture a machine gun, and then sue when it is denied?

I think you could, but you'd need TONS of money to get it in front of SCOTUS, and more than likely, with the current court's makeup, you'd lose, and then there would be actual legal precedent against our case. Now is definitely not the right time to try to pull that off.

Posted: 5/7/2010 1:47:11 PM EDT

[#34]

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.

Could you hypothetically submit whatever form it is to manufacture a machine gun, and then sue when it is denied?

I thought I heard (osprey21 knows all this I'm just remembering what I heard elsewhere) That the ATF just took the forms and never did anything with them.

Posted: 5/7/2010 1:49:26 PM EDT

[#35]

Quoted:
I wonder, hypothetically, what would happen if someone could prove the amendment did not pass?

What a can of worms that would open...

The words "It's too late now. We need to look forward, not back" come to mind.

Posted: 5/7/2010 2:36:37 PM EDT

[#36]

http://www.guncite.com/journals/hardfopa.html

A third proposed amendment, limiting dealer sales to nonresidents, passed, 233-184.[216] One final amendment, banning private ownership of any machinegun not already in lawful ownership on the date of enactment, was raised with only minutes left in the time allotted under the rule. It passed on a rather irregular voice vote.[217] The substitute was then accepted in place of H.R. 4332, was passed, and then substituted for the Senate-passed S. 49.[218]

[217] The record shows simply that the amendment "was agreed to." Id. at H1752. Those watching the debates could note that the chair, upon making this proclamation on the voice vote, refused to hear the Members calling for a recorded vote.

Posted: 5/8/2010 7:34:12 AM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
Remember, the 'nays' were AGAINST the MG ban hughes amendment.

rangle said the ayes have it, the amendment passed.

Still looking for the tape.

If you find it, we need to send it to Senator David Vitter (R-LA) with an explanation. Vitter has been more than willing to tack on pro-gun amendments to must-pass bills. He is the one who almost got nationwide CCW reciprocity, which only didn't pass because it got filibustered, but it had a clear majority.

Posted: 5/8/2010 3:36:25 PM EDT

[#38]

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.

Posted: 5/10/2010 12:43:19 PM EDT

[#39]

tag

Posted: 5/10/2010 4:25:43 PM EDT

[#40]

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

Posted: 5/10/2010 4:31:39 PM EDT

[#41]

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....

Posted: 5/10/2010 4:34:26 PM EDT

[#42]

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?

Posted: 5/10/2010 5:38:09 PM EDT

[#43]

Right.

It was in the house at the time, so one vote would be all that was needed.

I still think the house was meeting as a committee (judiciary?) for this debate.

THAT IS WHY IT ISN'T IN THE APRIL 10 HOUSE SESSION TAPE on CSPAN's archives.

At the end of the committee meeting, the full house returned and voted(?). I think.

Posted: 5/10/2010 6:50:56 PM EDT

[#44]

Quoted:

Right.

It was in the house at the time, so one vote would be all that was needed.

I still think the house was meeting as a committee (judiciary?) for this debate.

THAT IS WHY IT ISN'T IN THE APRIL 10 HOUSE SESSION TAPE on CSPAN's archives.

At the end of the committee meeting, the full house returned and voted(?). I think.

David Hardy's very well documented Columbia Law School Review article discusses this. The Hughes Amendment was offered and voted on during the floor debate in the House, not in a committee of the House.

The facts are there, complete with footnotes. And in the Congressional Record. C-SPAN video isn'tthe official record of the proceedings of the House. Another source is the United States Code Congressional and Administrative News published by West Group (found in law libraries).

Posted: 5/11/2010 9:02:51 AM EDT

[#45]

So, ODA, who was on the right in the chamber? Hughes was on the left and rangel was the temporary speaker in the middle.

The repugs on the right were the ones who said 'let it go'.

I can't get to the right page in the docs you referred to, it would probably be there.

Posted: 5/11/2010 10:03:49 AM EDT

[#46]

Quoted:

So, ODA, who was on the right in the chamber? Hughes was on the left and rangel was the temporary speaker in the middle.

The repugs on the right were the ones who said 'let it go'.

I can't get to the right page in the docs you referred to, it would probably be there.

In 1986 the Democrats held a majority in the House, as they would until 1995 (the 104th).

In the 99th (1985-7) Congress there were 253 Democrats and 182 Republicans. All the members weren't on the floor (that's pretty rare that they are) but the Democrats were never stupid enough to not have a floor majority.

Please explain to me, under the rules of the House -where the statement by the Speaker pro tempore that "the ayes have it" is final unless there is a recorded vote that contradicts it and Rangel's apparently deliberate failure to hear the calls for a recorded vote can't be appealed - what the "repugs" were supposed to do?

The Democrats, when they are in the majority (as they are now), run the House and Senate to suit themselves and there isn't jack the minority (Republicans) can do about it since the Rules Committee is run by the majority (Democrats). Republicans (unfortunately) are to "principled" to do that when they are in the majority because they believe the lying Democrats and wind up getting fucked (its probably tied into the suicidal Republican desire to be loved by the media and the Democrats that gives us idiots like McCain and Graham - they ought to use Packwood as their example, since it worked s-o-o-o well for him).

By the way, the "pro-FOPA" group included pro-gun Democrats and pro-gun Republicans - and the opposition included anti-gun Republicans and anti-gun Democrats.

It was a fixed game when Rangel banged the gavel and said the "ayes have it" and turned a deaf ear to the calls for a recorded vote. He did it on purpose because he knew the rules.

The only way to change it is to (1) elect enough pro-gun congressmen and senators to repeal 922(o) and override a Presidential veto if there isn't a pro-gun President or (2) get the Supreme Court to take a case where the legal issue strikes down 922(o).

To make (1) happen you are going to have to convince incumbents, challengers, and voters that this is an issue worth supporting / running on / voting for. And as single issues go, this doesn't approach the passion abortion brings out.

To make (2) happen you're going to need a real legal principal, a plaintiff with standing, unsettled / conflicting decisions at the US circuit level, and a Court that decides to hear the case - and lots and lots and lots of money and a shit-hot legal team.

The Court is not going to look at House rules and procedure and rule on whether it was legally passed or not. The Court has already established it doesn't rule on House (or Senate) rules and procedure.

Posted: 5/11/2010 5:47:37 PM EDT

[#47]

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?

Posted: 5/11/2010 5:49:48 PM EDT

[#48]

Free bump for a good cause

Posted: 5/12/2010 7:40:16 AM EDT

[#49]

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.

Posted: 5/15/2010 5:47:50 PM EDT

[#50]

I was a toddler when this happened, but after I learned about it many years later, not a day has gone by that I don't think about it and get pissed off. The only thing that makes me feel better is knowing that the anti-gun folks that made this happen are still alive and seeing much of their hard work dismantled (concealed carry, AWB sunset, repeal of tons of state gun laws, etc...)

I just wish that Hughes, Rangel, and Sarah Brady live long enough to see 922(o) be destroyed, and the NFA branch flooded with Form 1s for manufacture of new machine guns by all of us.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - 86 machine gun ban vote : Video page on 11 (Page 3 of 27)

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us