Armory Sponsor
Posted: 10/29/2009 10:52:01 AM EDT
|
Ok... Done a lot of reading....
Why the band of 1986 so civies can't purchase new MG's? Is it a way for military to keep an edge? Because of too many thugs/liberals/etc? Just curious. Thanks for humoring me. Tim |
|
Get a load of this......
The Hughes Amendment The restrictions on full-auto firearms are a result of the Hughes Amendment (99th Congress, H.AMDT.777). The amendment prohibited the general public from possessing fully-auto firearms manufactured after May 19, 1986. Rep. William Hughes (D-N.J.) proposed the amendment late in debate and at night when most of the members of the House were gone. Rep. Charles Rangel (D-N.Y.), a long proponent of gun control, was presiding over the House at that time and a voice vote was taken. Despite the fact that the bill appeared to fail, Rep. Rangel declared the amendment approved and it was incorporated into House Bill 4332. Once passing the House, H.R.4332 was incorporated in its entirety into S.49. The Senate passed the final S.49 on April 10, 1986 by voice vote and it was signed by the President on May 19, 1986. |
|
Yeah, I read all those...
I guess I'm just stunned at some of the new measures to "protect the citizens" being ruled on in our government... The problem I have is that as a law abiding citizen, I'm getting screwed. I just learned that I cannot carry at work. The badguys still get their "toys" no matter what laws are passed. It's like all these stupid "no gun" areas are safe zones for criminals to open up cause they know there will be no resistance, etc. Guess I'm just in a bad mood today, wishing I had a few grand to purchase some class 3 stuff. But I'm swimming in debt as it is (recent college graduate) (Masters in Music perf, BM in Music Ed.) ..... |
|
The NRA had been pushing for FOPA to be passed since 1980 (79?), every year they were defeated in a liberal Democrat-dominated House committee while having enough votes in the Senate to pass it. They muscled every single Representative they could to sign a discharge petition, basically a trick that brings the bill immediately to the floor of the house for a straight vote, got a majority and conducted the vote. The Democrats knew it was going to pass, so they threw the Hughes amendment on, hoping that the NRA would tell Reagan not to sign it and they'd try again next year.
The NRA's lawyers said the ban was so unconstitutional it would be struck down within 6 months, so they told Reagan to sign it anyway and they'd fight the ban in court. The lawyers were wrong and the ban has survived 23 years of challenges. 
Kharn |
|
Quoted:
Ok... Done a lot of reading.... Why the band of 1986 so civies can't purchase new MG's? Is it a way for military to keep an edge? Because of too many thugs/liberals/etc? Just curious. Thanks for humoring me. Tim It was a poison pill amendment the democrats added in the middle of the night to make the Firearm Owners Protection Act fail. But it passed anyway and Reagan signed it because gun owners were getting alot of benefit out of it even with the poison pill attached. It had nothing to do with crime or the military and everything to do with charles rangel, lautenberg, and hughes being douchebags of the highest order. |
|
Quoted:
Given the abuses of the ATF between 68 and 86, anyone in the NRA's position would have said to sign it anyway, the lawyers saying it would be gone within 6 months just sealed the deal.
Quoted:
Wow.... Thanks go to the Democrats again huh... I'm seeing a trend... Ummm No... I wouldn't just blame the Democrats. Remember Reagan (R) signed it. They are ALL crooked (D's and R's) and influenced by where the money is coming from. Kharn |
|
Quoted:
The NRA had been pushing for FOPA to be passed since 1980 (79?), every year they were defeated in a liberal Democrat-dominated House committee while having enough votes in the Senate to pass it. They muscled every single Representative they could to sign a discharge petition, basically a trick that brings the bill immediately to the floor of the house for a straight vote, got a majority and conducted the vote. The Democrats knew it was going to pass, so they threw the Hughes amendment on, hoping that the NRA would tell Reagan not to sign it and they'd try again next year. The NRA's lawyers said the ban was so unconstitutional it would be struck down within 6 months, so they told Reagan to sign it anyway and they'd fight the ban in court. The lawyers were wrong and the ban has survived 23 years of challenges.
Kharn And what exactly has the NRA done these past 23 years to fight it in court? Nothing that I am aware of. I feel they sold us out. |
|
Yeah, my bad on the "democrats" thing. Should've been more general and said politicians, those in power, etc.
Seems to me if they would open things up, then several people/organizations could make a lot of money. Gooberment on tax, arms dealers on products, and the regular Joe... maybe not in terms of money, but definitely satisfaction! So what was unconstitutional about the original band and how did they think it could be struck down in 6 months? Just the fact that they tried to regulate arms when we have the "right" to bear them? Thanks all. |
|
Quoted:
Yeah, my bad on the "democrats" thing. Should've been more general and said politicians, those in power, etc. Seems to me if they would open things up, then several people/organizations could make a lot of money. Gooberment on tax, arms dealers on products, and the regular Joe... maybe not in terms of money, but definitely satisfaction! So what was unconstitutional about the original band and how did they think it could be struck down in 6 months? Just the fact that they tried to regulate arms when we have the "right" to bear them? If the Heller case was any indication, it was the use by our military that makes it a strong case they should be available to civilians (regulated but not outright banned). In fact, SCOTUS proposed that MGs had more of a place in 2A than handguns. Of course, none of that matters since our "pro" side has argued that "protected arms" must be commonly available and the '86 ban has pretty much made MGs not commonly available. Now, MGs are just a convenient item to toss under the bus when other interests want something else. |
|
Just a thought, and I may be out of my mind for even considering it, but are there any congressmen or senators that would try to slip in one line repealing the Hughes amendment into the nearly 2000 page healthcare bill? If the anti-gun people can play those dirty tricks, why couldn't we? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
lol @ medic man... Good point sir. I actually wonder how much of those 2000 pages actually have to do with healthcare. I got bored one night and tried to read some on the public forums but just couldn't do it past a few pages.
Back to the original topic. I was just wonering about the history as it'd be nice to be able to own a MG without having to sell a kidney. Ha. But, on the other hand, what would "I" ever use (need) one for?... nothing but playing on the range probably. So sad. |
|
Quoted:
But, on the other hand, what would "I" ever use (need) one for?... nothing but playing on the range probably. So sad. actually, if you were ever in a situation where you NEEDED to use a MG, THAT would be sad (scary really) the only real use i would have for my M-16 on F/A would be if i'm hiking and get charged by a brown bear.... i'd for sure light em up! |
|
Quoted:
Just a thought, and I may be out of my mind for even considering it, but are there any congressmen or senators that would try to slip in one line repealing the Hughes amendment into the nearly 2000 page healthcare bill? If the anti-gun people can play those dirty tricks, why couldn't we? Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile carreer suicide |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Wow.... Thanks go to the Democrats again huh... I'm seeing a trend... Ummm No... I wouldn't just blame the Democrats. Remember Reagan (R) signed it. They are ALL crooked (D's and R's) and influenced by where the money is coming from. No, you can point the finger directly at democrats. 1968 GCA? Democrats. Plastic gun hysteria? democrats. Saturday night special hysteria? democrats. pre-94 attempts at semi-auto and magazine bans? democrats. Brady bill? Democrats. 1994 AWB? democrats. All (serious) renewal efforts of AWB? Democrats. The entire mantra of the democrat party can be summed up in Metzenbaum's (may he rot in hell) statement: "I don't care about the criminals, I just want the guns" |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
1
Quoted:
Wow.... Thanks go to the Democrats again huh... I'm seeing a trend... Ummm No... I wouldn't just blame the Democrats. Remember Reagan (R) signed it. They are ALL crooked (D's and R's) and influenced by where the money is coming from. No, you can point the finger directly at democrats. 1968 GCA? Democrats. Plastic gun hysteria? democrats. Saturday night special hysteria? democrats. pre-94 attempts at semi-auto and magazine bans? democrats. Brady bill? Democrats. 1994 AWB? democrats. All (serious) renewal efforts of AWB? Democrats. The entire mantra of the democrat party can be summed up in Metzenbaum's (may he rot in hell) statement: "I don't care about the criminals, I just want the guns" And who endorsed all those gun control bills? The NRA!  They have turned around quite a bit .. but only after people like me told them to FOAD if they wouldn't fight for ALL gun-owner rights rather than those of the "good ole boy hunting club"
|
|
Quoted:
And who endorsed all those gun control bills? The NRA! They have turned around quite a bit .. but only after people like me told them to FOAD if they wouldn't fight for ALL gun-owner rights rather than those of the "good ole boy hunting club"Yep. Plenty of blame to go around. MGs were very convenient for certain people that wanted the rest of FOPA. Of course, present day, certain states thumb their noses at it. And sadly, there are still gun owners that want to trade away certain firearms ("assault weapons", .50 BMG, blah blah blah) just to keep theirs from being banned. How are you suppose to compromise with the opposition when they want everything banned? The answer is to not compromise. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
1
Quoted:
Wow.... Thanks go to the Democrats again huh... I'm seeing a trend... Ummm No... I wouldn't just blame the Democrats. Remember Reagan (R) signed it. They are ALL crooked (D's and R's) and influenced by where the money is coming from. No, you can point the finger directly at democrats. 1968 GCA? Democrats. Plastic gun hysteria? democrats. Saturday night special hysteria? democrats. pre-94 attempts at semi-auto and magazine bans? democrats. Brady bill? Democrats. 1994 AWB? democrats. All (serious) renewal efforts of AWB? Democrats. The entire mantra of the democrat party can be summed up in Metzenbaum's (may he rot in hell) statement: "I don't care about the criminals, I just want the guns" And who endorsed all those gun control bills? The NRA! They have turned around quite a bit .. but only after people like me told them to FOAD if they wouldn't fight for ALL gun-owner rights rather than those of the "good ole boy hunting club"The NRA endorsed the Brady Bill, the AWB, the various schemes to ban "plastic" guns, magazines, semi-autos, "cheap" guns, etc, etc??? That's news to me. |
|
Hey, hey!!! I have an idea! I think we can settle this debate! Here's what we do:
Take all the folks who want to ban guns and put them on one side of a field with plastic knives (de-sharpened of course to protect the unborn babies from maybe getting cut). Then take all those who are in favor of our gun rights and arm them with whatever they so choose. The two sides then fight it out and winner gets all! Sounds fair to me! Let the flames begin. All in jest. Anyone know where I can get the history votes of the NRA on some of these points. I may not be renewing my membership if they are supporting some of this crap.... |
|
Quoted:
Anyone know where I can get the history votes of the NRA on some of these points. I may not be renewing my membership if they are supporting some of this crap.... The NRA has never supported any of the nonsense mentioned. FOPA - including the MG ban- was supported with the understanding that the MG ban was going to be blown out in court, which obviously never happened. |
|
Quoted:
See US v Stewart, previous challenges (besides Miller) tried to claim the Commerce Clause was not correctly applied, they lost.
Has anyone challenged any of the NFA laws in court? Kharn |
|
Quoted:
I'm assuming some of these cases were appealed? I know nothing about how law works, but if there were a petition signed, could some laws be removed? Just a thought. Petition? 
In a nutshell: You get a majority of the democrat controlled house, a majority of the democrat controlled senate, and a signature from the democrat president, and you have a law. This link appears to have all the steps |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
1
Quoted:
Wow.... Thanks go to the Democrats again huh... I'm seeing a trend... Ummm No... I wouldn't just blame the Democrats. Remember Reagan (R) signed it. They are ALL crooked (D's and R's) and influenced by where the money is coming from. No, you can point the finger directly at democrats. 1968 GCA? Democrats. Plastic gun hysteria? democrats. Saturday night special hysteria? democrats. pre-94 attempts at semi-auto and magazine bans? democrats. Brady bill? Democrats. 1994 AWB? democrats. All (serious) renewal efforts of AWB? Democrats. The entire mantra of the democrat party can be summed up in Metzenbaum's (may he rot in hell) statement: "I don't care about the criminals, I just want the guns" And who endorsed all those gun control bills? The NRA! They have turned around quite a bit .. but only after people like me told them to FOAD if they wouldn't fight for ALL gun-owner rights rather than those of the "good ole boy hunting club"So I am sure that in support of your high moral standards on the second amendment, you have never: Ordered ammo on line (no NRA no FOPA no on line ordering of ammo), transported a firearm through a jurisdiction where it was illegal (worthless fucking NRA did that too). Refused to purchase any of the guns that would have been affected by the 1994 AWB with out the NRA. And of course you never bought a pre-ban anything during the ban (again we could do that thanks to those worthless fucks at the NRA). And you still buy ban compliant shit because without the NRA that piece of shit law never would have sunsetted. If you have done those things than you are welcome. No need to say thanks I am used to supporting people on welfare and not being told thank you. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
1
Quoted:
Wow.... Thanks go to the Democrats again huh... I'm seeing a trend... Ummm No... I wouldn't just blame the Democrats. Remember Reagan (R) signed it. They are ALL crooked (D's and R's) and influenced by where the money is coming from. No, you can point the finger directly at democrats. 1968 GCA? Democrats. Plastic gun hysteria? democrats. Saturday night special hysteria? democrats. pre-94 attempts at semi-auto and magazine bans? democrats. Brady bill? Democrats. 1994 AWB? democrats. All (serious) renewal efforts of AWB? Democrats. The entire mantra of the democrat party can be summed up in Metzenbaum's (may he rot in hell) statement: "I don't care about the criminals, I just want the guns" And who endorsed all those gun control bills? The NRA! They have turned around quite a bit .. but only after people like me told them to FOAD if they wouldn't fight for ALL gun-owner rights rather than those of the "good ole boy hunting club"So I am sure that in support of your high moral standards on the second amendment, you have never: Ordered ammo on line (no NRA no FOPA no on line ordering of ammo), transported a firearm through a jurisdiction where it was illegal (worthless fucking NRA did that too). Refused to purchase any of the guns that would have been affected by the 1994 AWB with out the NRA. And of course you never bought a pre-ban anything during the ban (again we could do that thanks to those worthless fucks at the NRA). And you still buy ban compliant shit because without the NRA that piece of shit law never would have sunsetted. If you have done those things than you are welcome. No need to say thanks I am used to supporting people on welfare and not being told thank you. And thus you place yourself in the "throw MGs under the bus" crowd. Congratulations. |
| now i have herd that Class 3 stuff is pretty safe from new gun laws because to change the NFA laws it deals with Tax law, which is harder for law makers to change, is that true? for instance, wouldn't they be able to stop further production of SBRs, AOWs, and silencers if they made it illegal for the AFT to accept the Tax payment? (isn't that how the MG ban works) correct me if i am wrong. |
|
Quoted:
Please remember that this is a technical forum. Discussion of NFA history is welcome and encouraged here. Political arguments are not –– take them to the General forums, or the Bear Pit. If I was out of line I apologize, I hit this off of active topics and subscriptions without realizing the forum it was in. As such I will not respond to the throw mg's under the bus crowd but if the poster asking the question would like to discuss it feel free to IM me. |
|
Quoted:
It still only takes a majority vote in the House & Senate, and the President's signature.
now i have herd that Class 3 stuff is pretty safe from new gun laws because to change the NFA laws it deals with Tax law, which is harder for law makers to change, is that true? for instance, wouldn't they be able to stop further production of SBRs, AOWs, and silencers if they made it illegal for the AFT to accept the Tax payment? (isn't that how the MG ban works) correct me if i am wrong. Kharn |
|
I'll at least clarify my remark why FOPA was "throwing MGs under the bus". Indeed, the GCA '68 allowed plenty of abuse by the ATF. No doubt, we really needed FOPA to resolve some of these abuses stemming from GCA. But given the circumstances in which the Hughes Amendment was added and in which no real opposition materialized from anybody, the bill could be literally summarized as "lots of benefits and resolutions of abuses from GCA" but "no more new MGs". That's a trade-off. The supposed following lawsuit challenge doesn't change FOPA for what it is.
Now, let's compare it to a recent piece of legislation that's a great analogy - the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA). We needed it to stop frivolous lawsuits solely intended to bankrupt the firearm manufacturers. In the 108th Congress version of the bill, the banners wanted to kill it with a poison pill by adding the AWB2. In their eyes, either continued lawsuits against the manufacturers or an even stricter AWB2 would further their goals. This time around, it was made clear to everybody involved that it must be a clean bill. No more compromises. We killed our own bill in the 108th. In the 109th, again it was submitted, again poison pill amendments were attempted, but it passed relatively clean. We did not trade lawsuit protection for AWB2. It was be optimistic to think that it was lessons learned directly from FOPA but I think PLCAA passed the way it did because of other factors. The Internet enabled pending legislation to be scrutinized faster and by more people. We're better organized politically. AWB2 was going to affect several magnitude more people than the Hughes amendment. And maybe we're just tired of all the shenanigans the banners keep trying. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
It still only takes a majority vote in the House & Senate, and the President's signature.
now i have herd that Class 3 stuff is pretty safe from new gun laws because to change the NFA laws it deals with Tax law, which is harder for law makers to change, is that true? for instance, wouldn't they be able to stop further production of SBRs, AOWs, and silencers if they made it illegal for the AFT to accept the Tax payment? (isn't that how the MG ban works) correct me if i am wrong. Kharn No it takes getting it into a bill in the first place which is the hard part |
Armory Sponsor