1986 FOPA Hughes amendment vote footage located

[AJAX22]

Hello,

I haven't had an excuse to join here untill just recently, but I would like to share some info with you that I've been working on. (I mostly hang out over at calguns.net)

Essentially, there may be video/audio evidence that the 86 machine gun ban (Hughes amendment) was never actually passed, but simply recorded as having been passed.

The congressional record indicates that the recorded vote (taken before the vote which 'passed' it) was defeated 298 to 124with 12 not voting

Here is a PDF of the relevant section of April 10th

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B4x...ut=list&num=50

Here is a TXT file of the relevant section of April 10th

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B4x...NjU0ODcw&hl=en

Here is a PDF of the full section of April 10th

https://docs.google.com/leaf?id=0B4x...ut=list&num=50

There are no available video archives of the 1986 house vote, as the C-span tapes were all destroyed, and I haven't been able to find a copy of any aired footage in any of the available video archives or footage companies.

However, the Library of congress DOES have a copy

using the time data from the congressional record it is clear that the tapes we need is:

Contents: 09:57-11:29 (VTA 0236)
11:26-13:00 (VTA 0237)
Library of Congress Web Site unavailable (Library of Congress)

I've submitted a price quote request, and should have a copy of the DVD here in a month or two, at which time I'll put the relevant sections on Youtube. as well as the total unedited raw footage.

So we may have this whole fiasco on video, possibly including the falsifying the congressional record, and thereby eliminating the creation of transferable machine guns.

At minimum we can dispel some of the rumors surrounding the whole issue.

For instance, It looks like despite popular legend the stuff that went down on the evening of april 9th was procedural and not the BIG screw up, April 10th seems to be when everything went screwy...



Some Parts of the transcript to note:

Parts to note:


Hughes introduces his Machine gun banning amendment and attempts to have it NOT read, which is sneaky, since he's the only one who knows its in there (as illustrated by the little surprised comments from Volkmer).

AMENDMENT OFFERED BY MR. HUGHES TO THE
AMENDMENT, AS AMENDED, OFFERED BY MR.
VOLKMER AS A SUBSTITUTE FOR THE JUDICI-
ARY COMMITTEE AMENDMENT IN THE NATURE
OF A SUBSTITUTE, AS AMENDED
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I offer
an amendment to the amendment of-
fered as a substitute for the committee
amendment in the nature of a substi-
tute.
PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I
have a parliamentary inquiry.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
will state it.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman,
before the amendment is read, I would
like to know if the amendment was
one of those printed in the RECORD
prior to today.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will so
inquire of the gentleman from New
Jersey whether his amendment has
been printed in the RECoRD?
Mr. HUGHES. It has been printed in
the RECoaR, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will
read.
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, has
it been printed in the RECORD by Mr.
HUOHES?
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, it
is not required that the sponsor of the
amendment have it printed in the
REcoRD.
The Clerk will report the amend-
ment.
The Clerk read as follows:

[SNIP- Just the text of the machine gun ban]

Mr. HUGHES (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous con-
sent that the amendment be consid-
ered as read and printed in the
RECORD.

Hughes tries to avoid having it read the first time... remember, no one was expecting this, it wasn't up for a vote the night before, hughes had it entered in sometime between when the april 9th session ended and the early april 10th session began.

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, I
object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is
heard.
The Clerk continued the reading of
the amendment.
Mr. HUGHES (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I renew my request
that the amendment be considered as
read and printed in the RECORD. I ask
my colleagues, in all fairness and ra-
tionality-we only have 3 minutes
left-to give me an opportunity to ex-
plain why machineguns should be
banned.

With 3 minutes left, Huges tries a SECOND time to avoid having the bill read

Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman, regu-
lar order and reserving the right to
object-
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will
read.
The Clerk continued the reading of
the amendment.
Mr. HUGHES (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I renew my request for
a waiver of the reading of the amend-
ment.

Hughes tries a THIRD time to avoid having his amendment read

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chair-
man, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will
read.
The Clerk continued the reading of
the amendment.
Mr. HUGHES (during the reading).
Mr. Chairman, I renew my request for


)NGRESSIONAL RECORD-HOUSE


a waiver of the reading of the amend-
ment, I do not know why anyone
would object to the banning of ma-
chineguns.

Hughes tries a FOURTH time to avoid having his amendment read (remember, he's interrupting it being read each and every time he does this)

The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chair-
man, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is
heard.
The Clerk concluded the reading of
the amendment.


Hughes, with 140 seconds or so left to debate his bill, has everyone rise to vote, (we don't know if they actually get all the way through reading it... they may be voting on something they haven't even read) it gets slapped down hard


Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I
move that the Committee do now rise.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chair-
man, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Is it the Chair's
understanding that the gentleman
from New Jersey moves that the Com-
mittee do now rise?
Mr. HUGHES. That is my motion,
Mr. Chairman. I move that the Com-
mittee do now rise.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the motion offered by the gentleman
from New Jersey [Mr. HUGHES].
The question was taken;

NOTE: Mr Chairman (Good Ol, Charlie Rangel, AGAIN can't seem to tell that 298 is bigger than 124, and what a coincidence, he's one of the 124)


and the
Chairman announced that the ayes
appeared to have it.
RECORDED VOTE
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chair-
man, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic
device, and there were-ayes 124, noes
298, not voting 12, as follows:
(Roll No. 73]

So... The electronic vote tally's everything up, and the motion/amendment has been soundly defeated... or has it?

Some guy named Weiss, uses up the last of the time going on a TOTALLY unrelated diatribe about martin luther king and random stuff totally un related to machine guns..

0 1130
The CHAIRMAN. All time has ex-
pired for consideration of the Hughes
amendment to the Volkmer substitute.
For what purpose does the gentle-
man from New Jersey [Mr. HUGHES]
rise?

Time has run out, Hughes, desperately tries to get some more time to explain why machine guns are bad

Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, I have
a unanimous-consent request.
Mr. Chairman, I made the motion to
rise so that I could get additional time
for the Rules Committee to finish
debate on a number of amendments
that were noticed, have not been
reached and will not be heard, and
that is unfortunate. It is an important
matter.
My unanimous-consent request is
that I have 5 minutes to explain this
vote.
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. A point of
order. Mr. Chairman, that is not a
proper Inquiry.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, a
point of order. Regular order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman
will state his unanimous-consent re-
quest.
Mr. HUGHES. Mr. Chairman, my
unanimous request is that I have 5
minutes to explain this vote on ma-
chinegun bans.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey?
Mr. McCOLLUM. Reserving the
right to object, Mr. Chairman, would
the gentleman explain why he wants
that 5 minutes?
Mr. HUGHES. So we can explain
what is pending before the House.
Mr. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I
withdraw my reservation of objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection
to the request of the gentleman from
New Jersey [Mr. HUGHES]?
Mr. SENSENBRENNER. Mr. Chair-
man, I object.
The CHAIRMAN. Objection is
heard.

Because he framed it as a unanimous consent, a simple objection overrules the request by Hughes for more time


The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. HUGHES] to the amend-
ment, as amended, offered by the gen-
tleman from Missouri [Mr. VOLKMER]
as a substitute for the Judiciary Com-
mittee amendment in the nature of a
substitute, as amended.

This is where the voice vote is supposed to have occurred

The amendment to the amendment,
as amended, offered as a substitute for
the Judiciary Committee amendment
in the nature of a substitute, as
amended, was agreed to.

So, no record of the vote is made, no objections are made to the declaration (BY Charlie Rangel) that it passed... kind of strange, considering he's been 100% wrong all day in calling these things...

Everyone apparently is getting ready for the ultimate vote on the bill which is up next.

The CHAIRMAN. The question is on
the amendment, as amended, offered
by the gentleman from Missouri [Mr.
VOLKMER], as a substitute for the Judi-
ciary Committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute, as amended.
The question was taken; and the
Chairman announced that the noes
appeared to have it.

Well, wouldn't you know it Charlie Rangel calls it for his team AGAIN...


April 10, 1986


RECORDED VOTE
Mr. VOLKMER. Mr. Chairman, I
demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic
device, and there were-ayes 286, noes
136, not voting 12, as follows:

Once again, Rangel is wrong, 286 apparently is bigger than 136 and the FOPA passes.



And thats how it happened.


So the voice vote count is recorded as being the exact opposite as it was literally 5 minutes earlier? that doesn't make sense

Particularly when you compare the consistence of the individual votes within other bills, and charlie rangel's tendency to erroneously call victory for his team.

I've made up a spreadsheet that can be found here :

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?...PZkRxdVE&hl=en

As you can plainly see, (although i haven't finished yet) almost all of the people who voted aye on role 73, voted noe on role 74... AND almost all of the people who voted noe on role 73 voted aye on role 74...

So either a random and unrelated speech about martin Luther king caused a substantial of congress changed their minds in 5 minutes between the recorded vote 73 and the voice vote, even though they had just voted on it, and recorded as having failed was passed or no one caught that Rangel was simply calling all voice votes as favoring his team the entire day, even when it was clearly NOT

[Tom Servo]

Watching this unfold with great interest. Please keep us in the loop.

[WeedWacker]

Ok, I'm kinda running on fumes here, but what exactly will this mean in it's entirety? Is the vote on the overall FOPA not in order or is it just the Hughes ammendment that is allegedly incorrectly tallied?

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Ok, I'm kinda running on fumes here, but what exactly will this mean in it's entirety? Is the vote on the overall FOPA not in order or is it just the Hughes ammendment that is allegedly incorrectly tallied?

It is just the Hughes Amendment that is affected.

[Technosavant]

What might be possible to attain if it can be readily demonstrated that the Hughes Amendment was defeated by voice vote?

I know it means 922o is not valid. You know that means 922o is not valid. But can we get the government to admit that 922o is invalid?

I'd love to see that go away as much as anybody (even though I'm sure it would mean more fingerprinting and tax stamp action for me), but what's the process for getting it tossed once it's demonstrated it was all a lie?

[Al Norris]

The problem is that no one is going to change a thing.

You can gather all the evidence in the world, but if the legislature refuses to fix the problem, we are stuck with the Hughes Amendment. The courts will not even take the case, as it is entirely a political problem.

[Spats McGee]

It's not entirely a political problem. If there's evidence that the procedure by which the amendment was passed was fatally deficient, then the amendment may not have any legal force. To challenge it, someone who has been harmed, or who is threatened with harm, by its enforcement will have to file an action.

[44 AMP]

While I cannot provide links, I assume the story to be true.

For many years some folks have been claiming that the Income tax was not properly passed, and therefore, not legal. Mostly they wind up in jail. The story is that at one time (maybe in the late 70's or 80's) one of the legal challenges made its way through the courts.

The claim was upheld, in that the court agreed that the tax was not properly passed (it was two different versions of the amendment that got voted on, neither one passed, but combined they did).

HOWEVER, the court ruled that while the tax had not been properly passed, since we had been paying it for so many decades, it now stood as law, and we must continue to pay it.

This I think will be the same thing, generally. Even if we have concrete proof that proper procedure was not followed, the law will not be changed. FA owners are a very small minority, and even if you add in everyone who would like to have a full auto, it still adds up to very few people, compared to the shooting public, and even less to the general population.

Adding into that is the common prejudice against machine guns, and the only hope of getting the law changed is slim and none, and slim is currently out of town.

Doesn't mean its not worth a shot though. The only down side is that when we focus attention on machine guns, we risk further restrictions if our case loses. And reality matters little when it comes to that. Public opinion (misinformed, at best) and legislators opinions are what has carried the day, not ours, so far.

[Brian Pfleuger]

I think it's worth pursuing just to expose yet one more example of corruption. The more worms get out of the can, the more likely we can get enough people angry enough to close the lid.

[Crosshair]

To challenge it, someone who has been harmed, or who is threatened with harm, by its enforcement will have to file an action.

Well that will be easy as dirt. Find someone who wants to transfer a FA gun to which no Pre-86 guns exist. Do the same thing that was done in DC vs Heller.

[full.tang.halo]

Originally Posted by Crosshair

Well that will be easy as dirt. Find someone who wants to transfer a FA gun to which no Pre-86 guns exist. Do the same thing that was done in DC vs Heller.

If you're gonna go that direction make sure it isn't something that has a semi-auto civie version, least someone get cute and try a false equivalence argument.

[BlueTrain]

It is a little bit like a common law marriage. If you live with someone long enough, you have presented yourself to the world as married. But there is no such thing as common law divorce.

I don't think it has anything to do with corruption. That takes money.

[Tennessee Gentleman]

One thing nobody mentioned is that the President signed it too. He could have vetoed it but choose not to and allowed it to stand. If you want it fixed do what we did with concealed carry in National Parks!

[Crosshair]

One thing nobody mentioned is that the President signed it too. He could have vetoed it but choose not to and allowed it to stand. If you want it fixed do what we did with concealed carry in National Parks!

I think you misunderstand how the US government works.The president does not write legislation. He either signs legislation that has passed both houses of congress or he vetoes it in its entirety. The president does not have line item veto.

The Hughes Amendment was part of the 1986 GOPA which was a very pro-gun owner piece of legislation. Reagan could either sign the entire bill or veto it. The Hughes Amendment was larglysomething intended to try and kill the entire bill.

[9mmHP]

Many of you may not remember 1986. When this occurred everybody knew what Rangel did. It was obvious, it was even reported on the evening news, but he had the gavel and he could do what he wanted. That's how the House works. This was all mulled over and disputed 24 years ago and nothing came of it. NOT that it should be forgotten, or that you shouldn't try whatever you can, just that it's an uphill battle. The FOPA sponsors urged Reagan to sign it even with the Hughes poison pill, thinking they could get it repealed in the next session, but the '86 elections brought a worse party split with the Democrats regaining the Senate and taking more House seats making any attempt to pass any more pro-gun legislation next to impossible.

[vranasaurus]

Didn't the entire bill with the Hugghes amendment get passed?

Focusing on how the amendment was added and ignoring the fact that the bill, with the amendment included, passed won't get you anywhere.

Congress sets the rules for how it considers and passes legislation and no court is going to get into the business of interpreting internal congressional rules.

The amendment may have been added surreptitiously but the entire bill was voted on with the amendment included.

The hugghes amendment was intended to poison the FOPA. There was so much good in it that not voting for it on account of the Hughes amendment would have been contrary to the goal of furthering gun rights.

If that would have happened the ATF would probably still be going around doing excessive inspections on FFLs and we would still have logs of ammunition purchasers among other things.

The Hughes amendment is bad but not having the FOPA would be even worse.

[WeedWacker]

Didn't the entire bill with the Hugghes amendment get passed?

I thought the whole point was the amendment was not passed and therefore should have been stricken from the FOPA. Or am I thinking wrong. (Thinking usually gets me in trouble)

[44 AMP]

The Hughes Amendment was not properly passed, it did, in fact, fail (and now we have some proof), and should not have been attached to the FOPA.

But it was, and the FOPA was signed into law, Hughes amendment included, so we are stuck with it as law, until either a court declares it unconstitutional (unlikely), or Congress rewrites the law, and gets it passed (only slightly less unlikely).

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, I think the way to do it is the same way the sneaky rats did it to us. Without fanfare, hoopla, or public debate and discussion (which we are virtually certain to have turned against us).

Just have some lawmaker insert a line or two in some "must pass" bill, stating something like "change public law XXXX.xxx line 122334 to read..." and re open the registry for full autos. No other changes, keep the same stupid restrictions and requirements of the 1934 NFA act, just let us follow the law the way it used to be!

We should also use the same tactic to refund the board that reviews felons individual cases for restoration of gun rights. I'm not calling for all felons to have their gun rights restored, only for those individuals who are not dangerous, and became felons (due to the system) for some non violent act. Indivdual case review should be provided for these people. It still is, in law, but in reality, since there is no money allotted for it, it doesn't happen.
(if I'm wrong on this, please correct me, guys)

With the new crop of legislators coming in, and the focus on individual rights being one of the things that put them into office, we might have a chance, if we do it the (distasteful) way it was done to us. Sauce for the goose!

[AJAX22]

The price quote showed up today, and we've already raised the $391.25 to cover the cost.

The 2A community is amazing.

All the checks/paypal funds etc. are being gathered togeather and I'm prepping the order form... this is really happening.

Just keeping everyone updated

[AJAX22]

A bit of good news, it looks like we will be able to upload this through a premium Vimeo account... So it won't be 18 ten min film clips, but rather 3 one hour blocks.... Which makes my life a lot easier.

Very cool stuff

[Al Norris]

Ajax, have you viewed these yet? Do they show the shenanigans that the text seems to infer?

[AJAX22]

I have not yet viewed the footage, it is currently in a Virginia loc archive on 16mm film.

It will be 4-9 weeks before I have this in hand, and I will be making it immediatly available.

[Al Norris]

Thank you Ajax.

[WeedWacker]

Any idea on a time frame for when the project will be finished?

[AJAX22]

4-9 weeks

You'll have it as soon as I have it.