I will correct the grammer of the first sentence though, but leave the (NFA 1986) part in the title unless you have a better suggestion.
"NFA 1986" simply doesn't make sense, and most readers really won't know what it is.
To be honest, I'd suggest you drop the idea altogether. I'm sure it was meant well, but it doesn't matter how many signatures you get. It's not going to have an effect.
The first problem is that you're assuming anyone in power actually pays attention to the multitude of petitions on change.org. Take for example my state senator. I've spent an afternoon in his office. He gets between 60 and 70 letters a day. He has a staffer who has to skim each of those, filter out the weird crackpot rantings and irrelevant attaboys, and decide which ones merit his attention. Then that staffer has to do the same with innumerable emails. Then he's got another staffer who has to act as a filter for phone calls.
That's a guy representing a fairly rural district in one state. Now consider the volume of correspondence a United States senator must get. I sincerely doubt that many are even aware of change.org, much less investing time in reading it.
The Supreme Court has its own mechanism for deciding what cases to hear, and it has nothing to do with internet petitions.
Then there's the question of actually getting the Hughes Amendment repealed. By what means would we do so? Are we absolutely
sure the Hughes Amendment is severable from FOPA? If not, that opens up a whole other problem.
Right now, any mention of machine guns in the debate hurts our chances. We're still laying the groundwork. The time to challenge the NFA and the Hughes Amendment will come, but not in the next few years.