Vote to repeal the hughes amendment

[Flooganbargan]

Hello all, I'm here to ask you guys to sign this petition on whitehouse.gov to help repeal the hughes amendment that closed the machine gun registry in 1986. it was never legally passed(video in link below). Me and possibly a few others from another certain weapons board are going around asking everyone to sign this. it only takes a couple of seconds to register on whitehouse.gov and vote for it. we need 5,000 signatures by the end of this month. if we pull together we may be able to reach that goal.


https://wwws.whitehouse.gov/petition...d-nfa/FWXhjh9s Sign it and get all of your gun loving friends too as well!


here is the video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6Mx2UcSEvQ

[JimPage]

I didn't sign the petition because to do so requires registering with the WH site. That would be a tacit endorsement of the man in the WH so I will not do it!

[PeterTitan]

Hi Jim
I disagree with you, it is not an endorsement, just a statement.
And my statement is REPEAL!

[thallub]

The white house can't repeal the Hughes amendment even if the occupant there wanted to.

[Tom Servo]

Good intentions, but do you really think an administration with a history of contempt for the 2nd Amendment is really going to repeal any restrictions based on an online petition?

Of all things, the Hughes Amendment is an easy one to defend keeping while still claiming to support the 2nd Amendment. After all, it keeps machine guns out of the hands of criminals and saves thousands of lives a day.

[BGutzman]

Good intentions, but do you really think an administration with a history of contempt for the 2nd Amendment is really going to repeal any restrictions based on an online petition?

Nor do they seem to know any other amendments of the constitution outside of the "pass laws" section.

I would gladly sign the petition but being its on a WH website I wont do it either as it might me seen as a endorsement of a administration I find akin to Alien beings from Mars or San Francisco or some otherworldly place.

[Crazy88Fingers]

Someone should proofread that petition.

[kozak6]

Politically, I don't think the time is right for this.

Also, it may not mean much that it wasn't passed lawfully. Since it has effectively been the law for 25 years, it may now carry the force of law anyways.

I believe there is a legal term for this, but I can't remember it.

didn't sign the petition because to do so requires registering with the WH site. That would be a tacit endorsement of the man in the WH so I will not do it!

I would gladly sign the petition but being its on a WH website I wont do it either as it might me seen as a endorsement of a administration I find akin to Alien beings from Mars or San Francisco or some otherworldly place.

Typically, online petitions are entirely worthless for a wide variety of reasons.

So, at the one place on the entire internet where it might not be, you guys refuse to register/sign since it is a definite sign of endorsing Obama?

This makes absolutely no sense at all to me.

[BGutzman]

So, at the one place on the entire internet where it might not be, you guys refuse to register/sign since it is a definite sign of endorsing Obama?

This makes absolutely no sense at all to me.

I could answer this but it would not be appropriate to the forum. So I leave it at this..... Socialism is not for me..

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Won't make any difference, so let's avoid some politics. If you want a policy changed, elect those who will change it. But don't hold your breath on this one.

[thallub]

Won't make any difference, so let's avoid some politics. If you want a policy changed, elect those who will change it. But don't hold your breath on this one.

+1
Congressmen are well aware that proposing the elimination of Hughes is a third rail and they won't go there.

[carguychris]

Congressmen are well aware that proposing the elimination of Hughes is a third rail and they won't go there.

+1; furthermore, proposing to reopen the machinegun registry risks shining a spotlight on the entire NFA, specifically the fact that the $200 tax has never been adjusted for inflation.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics CPI Inflation Calculator, $200 in 1934 dollars is equal to $3,381.27 in 2011 dollars. May I remind you that Congress is locked in budget-cutting negotiations and the WH is looking for ways to raise revenue without upsetting their core constituents? What have we achieved if we reopen the registry but have to pay almost $4,000 for a tax stamp?

[Tom Servo]

proposing to reopen the machinegun registry risks shining a spotlight on the entire NFA, specifically the fact that the $200 tax has never been adjusted for inflation.

Bingo. Let's remember that the NFA is a tax. A tax is a means of generating government revenue. Think of how much could be generated not only by adjusting the Form 4 for inflation, but requiring renewal every couple of years.

We don't want to poke the bear here. Right now, we do not have the clout to make the situation better. Remember that Gura and Clement took great pains to sidestep the very mention of machine guns in the oral arguments for Heller. While handguns can be considered weapons "in common use," it would be fairly easy to argue that machine guns (at least in the hands of civilians) are not. We're still setting the contours for the 2nd Amendment, and we're a long way from having the political or legal support for attacking the NFA.

Typically, online petitions are entirely worthless for a wide variety of reasons.

If they address the right issue, with a huge groundswell of support, they might be part of the toolbox. Alone, they do nothing.

[secret_agent_man]

it would be fairly easy to argue that machine guns (at least in the hands of civilians) are not (in common use)

Fully automatic weapons are common and in-use carry guns of foot soldiers the world over. While force multipliers, they are hardly in the same class of "extraordinary" combat weapons cited by SCOTUS in Heller, such as SAM missals and tanks. Machine guns are probably a very good option, if not the most effective home defense weapon available. If you know how to use one, they are extremely devastating in close quarters combat. They most likely fall into the category of qualified guns protected under the Second Amendment.

And don't think for a moment that just because you did not sign the petition they don't know who you are and are not coming to get you one day...

[Tom Servo]

Machine guns are probably a very good option, if not the most effective home defense weapon available.

Perhaps, but how do we convince legislators and judges of that? In the current climate, it's impossible.

Bear in mind that, in the eyes of the courts, the 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of a person who's passed a background check, paid money for a license, and registered with the government to keep a handgun that's approved by said government in the home. Full stop. We're still working just to get carry outside the home acknowledged, and some folks want to go after the Hughes amendment?

We're just not there yet. We won't be for a few years. Pushing the issue too early could be very destructive to our long-term goals.

[Hardcase]

Congressmen are well aware that proposing the elimination of Hughes is a third rail and they won't go there.

Good lord, I think that you've discovered what the problem is in Congress! There are so many "third rails" that the train is completely jammed up and can't get out of the station!

[44 AMP]

Machine guns are probably a very good option, if not the most effective home defense weapon available.

I don't see you (or anyone) getting much public agreement with that statement.

because its simply not true. Not in our society today. With nearly 80 years of Federal restriction on legal machine gun ownership, and even longer brainwashing of the general public by the entertainment media, the overwhelming majority of people who support gun rights don't support private machinegun ownership. They are just too scared. Machineguns are only used by BAD GUYS, and, of course, Federal Agents! That's what they have been taught, and what they believe. It is an emotional issue, and one where to the majority of people, nationwide, the facts simply don't matter.

And, of course, among those who oppose gun rights, machine guns are the worst of the worst.

But, lets assume for a moment that is not the case (fantasy, but just for the purpose of discussion), machine guns are not in common use. Very, very few people without military training have any idea how to use them properly. And a great number of those with military training don't know how to use them properly, either!

Let's leave out belt fed machine guns, after all, how suitable are they for self defense, other that against a mob?

So it comes down to assault rifles and submachine guns. These, in unexpert hands are the personification of the phrase "spray and pray". And in our society, where the individual is responsible for each and every round fired in a self defense situation, how is it even remotely responsible to advocate full auto fire?

Imaging the homeowner, woken in the middle of the night by a break in. Instead of grabbing a revolver or even an auto pistol holding 15rnds, they grab a SMG instead? And if they fire, instead of firing one round they fire 6 or 8 or 20 with a single trigger pull? How many of those rounds are going to be likely to actually strike the attacker? 2? 3? 16? and where are the rest of those rounds going to go?

These are some of the questions that are going to be asked, and played to the hilt by everyone opposed to the idea of more full autos in civilian hands!

Just look at recent history, SEMI automatic firearms have been consistantly demonised in the media, just because they LOOK like full auto military weapons!

Even the most die hard 2nd Amendment supporter in our govt, who may totally agree with our right to own full auto firearms cannot and will not publically support it. Someone said its the "third rail", and in the sense that it is political death, they are right. Anyone honest enough to admit the truth has to admit that no matter what our rights actually are, the reality is different, and huge numbers of people with no knowledge or stake in the matter, but with the same vote each of us has will bury anyone who proposes "allowing more machineguns on our streets".

We risk losing the small legal avenues for ownership we currently still have. If we make this a public issue, at this time, or for the forseeable future, all we are going to do is have to work like hell to keep what we currently have, and the odds are, we wouldn't be able to do even that.

The basic idea that a full auto increases hit probability, and therefore ought to be a useful and effective defensive weapon simply will not fly in the US as it is today. One making this argument seriously would be lucky to escape with all the creditability they had before making the argument. Also add in the fact that by bringing up the subject, a loss (virtually certain) would also damage all our gun rights gains.

I cannot urge you strongly enough to abandon this particular argument, particularly in a public forum. It simply is not a good idea.

[secret_agent_man]

“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

-John Quincy Adams

[Stressfire]

I'd say 44 AMP phrased it as best as it could be said.

If the general public has a "freak-out" over weapons that simply look like their military counterparts, how do you think they might react to a bunch of self-identified gun-nuts lobbying to have not just "evil black rifles," but "evil black rifles" that function like their military counterparts.

If you want something for comparison to how the argument with Hughes proponents would go, just think of the minister's wife from The Simpsons: just a couple outbursts of "Won't someone think of the children" and suddenly the entire town is on board with whatever the heck it is that she wants to do.

Who says you can't learn things from cartoons

[secret_agent_man]

I'd say 44 AMP phrased it as best as it could be said.

Really?

abandon this particular argument, particularly in a public forum

It seems a rather poor trade to sacrifice one's 1st Amendment rights for 2nd Amendment rights. For without the former, there would be no rights at all, much less rights to firearms.

[Tom Servo]

If the general public has a "freak-out" over weapons that simply look like their military counterparts, how do you think they might react to a bunch of self-identified gun-nuts lobbying to have not just "evil black rifles," but "evil black rifles" that function like their military counterparts.

Consider this memo from the Violence Policy Center in 1998:

The weapons' menacing looks, coupled with the public's confusion over fully automatic machine guns versus semi-automatic assault weapons (anything that looks like a machine gun is assumed to be a machine gun) can only increase the chance of public support for restrictions on these weapons. In addition, few people can envision a practical use for these weapons.

The antis are hurting for money and support, but they're still out there. A proposal to reinstate widespread civilian ownership of machine guns would give them a much-needed bit of political capital.

It seems a rather poor trade to sacrifice one's 1st Amendment rights for 2nd Amendment rights.

You gotta do what you think is right. However, 44 AMP is right: we still need to pick our battles carefully, and the Hughes Amendment is not one we can win right now.

[Stressfire]

Really?

Really.

It seems a rather poor trade to sacrifice one's 1st Amendment rights for 2nd Amendment rights.

Not really, we can debate among ourselves the wisdom, or lack thereof, of challenging the amendment at this time, or at any time for that matter, ad nauseam. However, at this point, it would not change anything, and could actually contribute to limiting firearm rights even further by creating yet another political battleground for a hot button issue where an authoritative (governmental) agency or entity would have the task of settling it in whatever manner they see fit.

To reference the quote you cited, secret_agent_man, facts are indeed stubborn, they do not go away or change. However, facts can be ignored. Easily, in fact. Ever try to argue with someone so ingrained in their belief system that no matter how many facts you put in front of them, they continue in said beliefs and continue to tell you that you are mistaken despite overwhelming "evidence" to the contrary?

[44 AMP]

abandon this particular argument, particularly in a public forum

It seems a rather poor trade to sacrifice one's 1st Amendment rights for 2nd Amendment rights.

I have to wonder where this comes from, and specifically what you mean, in reference to my statement.

Telling someone that you think their argument is a bad one, and urging them to abandon it, because of that, is hardly an infringment on 1st Amendment right to free speech. It is simply an attempt to explain how I (and I believe, others as well) would view the statment about full auto for home defense, and an attempt to convince you to change your mind about the language used and the message being sent.

No government agency is saying you cannot say what you want (that would be an infringment of your rights), an individual telling you that you should not say those things (and why), is just an expression of their opinion, and infringes on your rights not at all.

[teeroux]

For machine guns or not it should be repealed under the simple fact it is a violation of law, order, and government. Votes by our represenatives aren't for good sport and laughs. If something doesn't pass it sure as hell doesn't become the law of the land. IMO

[thallub]

i'm solidly with 44 AMP on this one. Petitioning the white house on the Hughes amendment could easily backfire near election time in 2012. Face up to reality: No one in congress will propose legislation to eliminate the Hughes amendment. It's not going to happen.

Indulge in exercises of futility all you want to; that's your right. Don't be surprised when anti-gun politicians paint gunowners as far out radicals who wish to carry machine guns for self defense.