I know I can look this up on the “internet machine” but I had rather hear from the ARFCOM (content, value, and trust) community and I have done a search here with no good/specific answer.

At this time in history I, as many pro-rights individuals, am anxious to see what new laws and restrictions our new President pushes on us.  In my search for answers I have heard/seen many yelling but not from the “roof tops”, yet.  Many appear to be yelling for the need of a civil march on Washington, DC (permits, timing, organization, commitment), keeping an eye on new anti-rights legislation, and the idea of starting to call our representatives in Washington now rather than later about possible new legislation.

With that observation I have a few questions concerning the Firearms Protection Act of 1986.  It is my understanding that this Act was wrote in to law on a voice vote at night, making it more difficult to challenge much less even know the language of the Act?  If this is so it would appear the 86 Act would be a weak law and a target for attack, to dismantle now.  Instead of waiting for new legislation why not start calling, writing, faxing, and emailing our respective US Representatives about the FPA of 86, now?  Can anyone tell me what the NRA’s (I did email them with this question) stance is on this issue and are there any lawsuits or other legal action in the works at this time to get this Act repealed.  A $1000 tool that cost $15,000 after a single midnight shady law is past.  I believe if it were any other tool besides a rifle, the gov't would have done the opposite of creating a law.

If the Firearms Protection Act of 1986 would have occurred in, say, 2006 do you think it would have been as easy to pass as it was back in 1986?  I ask b/c of the advent of the internet machine.

thanks
iso

You should do some more reading on the topic.

The FOPA, per se, is not the problem.  It is a single, small part of the FOPA - specifically, the Hughes Amendment - which is the part which was added by dubious voice vote and bans post-86 MGs from civilian ownership.  Trust me, you DON'T want FOPA overturned en bloc, it actually does provide some very useful protections for gun owners and FFLs.  If you write your congressman, you should specifically ask them to fight against the Hughes Amendment.

The FOPA 86 was a good law as written.

The problem as you say came with a last minute addition referred to as the Hughes amendment that was tacked on and passed on a voice vote... Then the Speaker left before a roll call count could be demanded.

The Dems thought that there "poison pill" would cause the bill to get a Veto. But the Jackass NRA President David Cassidey (spelling?) advised Reagan to sign the bill without bothering to elaborate on the effects of the last second changes.

The NRA claimed it as a Victory - and laid the foundation in federal law for the future banning of a firearm by a specific classification.

Thanks for the replies.  As I thought, it appears to be just too much work to get a small part of one law changed, albeit a small change that would probably overwhelm the BATF with tax stamp request.  Not to mention the change in the supply and demand from a economical stand point.  I am still just a little surprised that such a horrible law (fraction of a law) obtained in such a dishonest way would stand the test of time (22+ years).  I still can find no argument or even an attempt at creating a new law that would change the Hughs Amend., do any of you know of an attempt?

thanks again
iso

While the vote on the Hughes Amendment was shady and slimy, was it procedurally correct?

If Roll Call was not completed by the Speaker or stand in then no it was not procedurally correct, worse thing is does that mean the whole law is bad procedure leading to a procedurally bad law?

iso

Reagan was doubtful on signing the bill with the ban attached (knowing the NRA had fought hard for it for 7 years) so he asked them to ask if he should sign or not.  The NRA's legal advisors said the ban was so unconstitutional it would be repealed within 6 months and that he should sign it.

These have been the longest 6mo in history.

Kharn

The NRA has consistently refused to back even the most viable cases which had proper standing.

And that same Jackass cost the NRA millions in workplace sexual harassment settlements.

Remember the NRA wanted the Heller case to be dropped also. We are our own worst enemy at times.

You should look up HR45 that will get your blood boiling!!!!
This is a new and BIG threat to our way of Life as gun owners.

Shit

1. Require licensing for anybody that owns a gun.

2. Would require photographs and a thumbprint

3. Would require passage of a test that covers:

(A) the safe storage of firearms, particularly in the vicinity of persons who have not attained 18 years of age;

(B) the safe handling of firearms;

(C) the use of firearms in the home and the risks associated with such use;

(D) the legal responsibilities of firearms owners, including Federal, State, and local laws relating to requirements for the possession and storage of firearms, and relating to reporting requirements with respect to firearms; and

(E) any other subjects, as the Attorney General determines to be appropriate;

I do not disagree that this legislation (HR45) needs attention, but I do think that we are continuing to play defense at a time in history where we should go on the offense, IMHO.  It is obvious that the NRA is not our best solution, given the 86 and 94 bans.  If any one corporate lobbying firm had the power the NRA HAD it would be balls to the walls guns for all.  Now today, if the NRA signs 4 million new members to total the NRA membership to 10,000,000 people and they walked into the White house they would be laughed at because B. Hussein Obama would say, "so what I have 20,000,000 illegal immigrants that are now legal Americans who will out vote your 10,000,000".  I hate to say it but the NRAs (and I think the GOAs) lobbying power is gone, what we have now is us, gun owners.  In the past it has been very difficult to get gun owners to agree and get alone on issues at hand.  They (gov't) are counting on that now so we must all find a mechanism or action plan that will satisfy/convince every gun owner, from the duck hunter to the elk hunter, from the black rifle shooter/collector to the machine gun shooter/collector.  [RANT OFF]

iso

It has been my experince that the "duck/elk hunters" are willing to sacrifice the "black rifle/machine gun shooter/collector" in the mistaken belief that this will allow them to keep their guns.

I agree, but that is in the past. Now, today, we have to have a common goal.  How and what goal I do not know at this time. I am really trying to part of the solution and not part of the problem, just I do not have clear understanding of what that solution is at this present moment. I talk with the above mentioned hunters on a weekly basis and believe it or not many have a better understanding, than in 1986 and 1994, that shotguns are "black rifles" to politicians.

iso

I am sorry, but it is not "in the past" where I live. Several of the "Fudds" at my range still say "Why do you need a gun like that" or "That gun is only for killing people". They do not share a "common goal". They don't think black rifles or MG's should be owned by anyone and they feel by sacrificing my guns to the politicians that they will save their guns. Until we can get these folks to believe that the anti-gunners want to take ALL guns they will not share a "common goal".

What ever and who ever this fucking bastard of a bill needs to be stopped. If you read into the meaning behind this bill Obama was part of it coming to light. The incident happened in his home state. A criminal who did not buy a gun legally killed Blair Holt and now we have to face a national registration. ACT NOW DO NOT WAIT!!

CAR-AR-M16
I do know your frustration and mindful desire for others to understand your (our) ply.
The only thing you can do with people like this is explain, in simple terms, how OUR loss is really a loss for all gun owners.  Also, ask if they have ever shot a black rifle, when they say no (most will in my experience) offer to let them crank off a few rounds at your expense.  Otherwise, chalk one up to effort on your part and continue to enjoy you hobby.

I still say we go after illegal and plain wrong bills/laws already in place and stop trying to figure out how to stop a bill/law that is without any co-sponsors and no committee involvement as of yet.

Also, talk to all Hunter/Gun owners about Mr Sunstein. Obama's Regulatory Czar and Obama's Regulatory Czar II.  Also, check out Warhawk's info here Warhawk

If that doesn't get them thinking straight nothing will!

iso