Calguns.net  

Home My iTrader Join the NRA Donate to CGSSA Sponsors CGN Google Search
CA Semiauto Ban(AW)ID Flowchart CA Handgun Ban ID Flowchart CA Shotgun Ban ID Flowchart
Go Back   Calguns.net > POLITICS, LITIGATION AND ACTIVISM > California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

California 2nd Amend. Political Discussion & Activism Discuss gun rights activism and 2A related political topics here. All advice given is NOT legal counsel.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 11-17-2010, 7:52 AM
AJAX22 AJAX22 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,725
iTrader: 111 / 100%
Default 86 Hughes Amendment video footage located (IT IS HERE!!! WATCHING NOW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!)

Tape is here!

Highlight reel




Quote:
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:

Quote:
Contents: 09:57-11:29 (VTA 0236)
11:26-13:00 (VTA 0237)
http://lccn.loc.gov/91796859
I'm submitting a price quote request, and should (if I can swing it) have a copy of the DVD here in a month or two, at which time I'll put the relevent sections on Youtube.

So... stay tuned... we may have Charlie Rangel on video falsifying the congressional record, and thereby eliminating the creation of transferable machine guns.


**** Edit *****

Ok, there may be more to this story than previously thought.

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



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).


Quote:
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..


Quote:
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.

Quote:



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.

Last edited by AJAX22; 01-26-2011 at 5:09 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 11-17-2010, 8:51 AM
Kharn's Avatar
Kharn Kharn is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: MD
Posts: 1,215
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

It was up to the Congress of 1986 to object and handle the disputed vote, the courts will not intervene.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 11-17-2010, 8:58 AM
nick nick is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,418
iTrader: 150 / 100%
Default

Supposedly, this was common knowledge, but it's great to have some video evidence. Great job, as usual.
__________________
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson
"Thou shalt not interfere with the Second Amendment rights of "law-abiding" citizens who want AK-47s only to protect hearth and home." - Paul Helmke finally gets it :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJgunguy24 View Post
Some people are so open minded, their brains have fallen out.


Selling a bunch of C&R and other rifles here: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...php?p=20061212
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 11-17-2010, 9:03 AM
CHS's Avatar
CHS CHS is offline
Moderator Emeritus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Santa Ana, CA
Posts: 11,368
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kharn View Post
It was up to the Congress of 1986 to object and handle the disputed vote, the courts will not intervene.
I still don't understand that.

If Congress breaks the law by falsifying information, it's up to Congress to challenge themselves? How on EARTH does that work? And why can't the PEOPLE bring a challenge against it? Especially if there is video evidence...
__________________
Please read the Calguns Wiki
Quote:
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
--Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishment"
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 11-17-2010, 9:23 AM
MP301's Avatar
MP301 MP301 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Now in Las Vegas NV
Posts: 4,181
iTrader: 49 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bdsmchs View Post
I still don't understand that.

If Congress breaks the law by falsifying information, it's up to Congress to challenge themselves? How on EARTH does that work? And why can't the PEOPLE bring a challenge against it? Especially if there is video evidence...


Like the old saying goes, "Who will Police the Police?"
__________________
Any Questions about Front Sight memberships or specific information about attending, Feel Free to send me a PM!
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 11-17-2010, 9:54 AM
hoffmang's Avatar
hoffmang hoffmang is offline
No, I am not a Moderator!
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Peninsula, Bay Area
Posts: 18,489
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

It wasn't passed correctly, but the courts have already opined that its a political question that they will not enter into. The solution is for the Legislature to amend.

-Gene
__________________
Gene Hoffman
Chairman, The Calguns Foundation

DONATE NOW
to support the rights of California gun owners. Follow @CalgunsFdn on Twitter.
Opinions posted in this account are my own and not the approved position of any organization.
I read PMs. But, if you need a response, include an email address or email me directly!


"The problem with being a gun rights supporter is that the left hates guns and the right hates rights." -Anon
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 11-17-2010, 9:55 AM
ZombieTactics's Avatar
ZombieTactics ZombieTactics is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Roseville area, or wherever they pay my confiscatory rates for things only I know how to do (lol)
Posts: 3,684
iTrader: 3 / 100%
Default

or "Who watches the watchmen?"
__________________
|

I don't pretend to be an "authority." I'm just a guy who trains a lot, shoots a lot and has a perspective.

Check the ZombieTactics Channel on YouTube for all sorts of gun-related goodness CLICK HERE
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 11-17-2010, 10:02 AM
AJAX22 AJAX22 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,725
iTrader: 111 / 100%
Default

I realize that this will likely have zero impact (separation of powers is clear) however it would be nice to have the smoking gun publically on display.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 11-17-2010, 10:04 AM
yellowfin's Avatar
yellowfin yellowfin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 8,373
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

I suppose this could be a good time to bring it up with the incoming Congress to fix, particularly since it was Rangel's doing and he's not too well liked right now.
__________________
"You can't stop insane people from doing insane things with insane laws. That's insane!" -- Penn Jillette
Quote:
Originally Posted by indiandave View Post
In Pennsylvania Your permit to carry concealed is called a License to carry fire arms. Other states call it a CCW. In New Jersey it's called a crime.
Discretionary Issue is the new Separate but Equal.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 11-17-2010, 10:06 AM
nick nick is online now
CGN/CGSSA Contributor
CGN Contributor
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 18,418
iTrader: 150 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bdsmchs View Post
I still don't understand that.

If Congress breaks the law by falsifying information, it's up to Congress to challenge themselves? How on EARTH does that work? And why can't the PEOPLE bring a challenge against it? Especially if there is video evidence...
Here's another one for you. In CA, if you file a motion to disqualify the judge at the trial you're a party to (say, for open bias or a number of other things judges do that they aren't supposed to be doing), guess who decides on the motion? The judge in question. It's up to him to determine whether he's impartial or not, and surprisingly he usually decides that he is. You can then appeal it, but the judge you complain about presides at the original trial on that complaint. Insane, huh?

Just one of the perks our {mostly} elected officials have devised to protect themselves from their subjects.
__________________
"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson
"Thou shalt not interfere with the Second Amendment rights of "law-abiding" citizens who want AK-47s only to protect hearth and home." - Paul Helmke finally gets it :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by SJgunguy24 View Post
Some people are so open minded, their brains have fallen out.


Selling a bunch of C&R and other rifles here: http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...php?p=20061212
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 11-17-2010, 10:23 AM
Bhobbs's Avatar
Bhobbs Bhobbs is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chino CA
Posts: 10,595
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

So the only way to get this fixed is to get the Congress to admit they did something wrong and change it themselves?
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 11-17-2010, 10:53 AM
AJAX22 AJAX22 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,725
iTrader: 111 / 100%
Default

Congress could either amend it to rectify the mistake (unlikely but possible)

Or they could amend their rules and procedures to allow for review and correction, but that sets a dangerous precedent
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 11-17-2010, 10:59 AM
Bhobbs's Avatar
Bhobbs Bhobbs is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chino CA
Posts: 10,595
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AJAX22 View Post
Congress could either amend it to rectify the mistake (unlikely but possible)

Or they could amend their rules and procedures to allow for review and correction, but that sets a dangerous precedent
So if we could get enough pressure they might amend the bill to fix the mistake?
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 11-17-2010, 11:00 AM
yellowfin's Avatar
yellowfin yellowfin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 8,373
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

The other possibility is to get a repeal amendment passed where the states can vote on repealing federal laws and get anything struck with 2/3 vote.
__________________
"You can't stop insane people from doing insane things with insane laws. That's insane!" -- Penn Jillette
Quote:
Originally Posted by indiandave View Post
In Pennsylvania Your permit to carry concealed is called a License to carry fire arms. Other states call it a CCW. In New Jersey it's called a crime.
Discretionary Issue is the new Separate but Equal.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 11-17-2010, 11:14 AM
Bhobbs's Avatar
Bhobbs Bhobbs is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chino CA
Posts: 10,595
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowfin View Post
The other possibility is to get a repeal amendment passed where the states can vote on repealing federal laws and get anything struck with 2/3 vote.
Do you think a 2/3 in our favor is possible? Would we have to turn over the whole law or could you single out the amendment?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 11-17-2010, 11:18 AM
Gray Peterson's Avatar
Gray Peterson Gray Peterson is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lynnwood, WA
Posts: 5,819
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowfin View Post
The other possibility is to get a repeal amendment passed where the states can vote on repealing federal laws and get anything struck with 2/3 vote.
A constitutional amendment such as that is politically impossible. 17 states can block such a bill, and you won't get 38 states to ratify it. The only possible constitutional amendment I can see passing very easily is a strengthening of the 2nd amendment in case Heller and McDonald are reversed.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 11-17-2010, 11:29 AM
bulgron bulgron is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Santa Clara County
Posts: 2,784
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gray Peterson View Post
A constitutional amendment such as that is politically impossible. 17 states can block such a bill, and you won't get 38 states to ratify it. The only possible constitutional amendment I can see passing very easily is a strengthening of the 2nd amendment in case Heller and McDonald are reversed.
You mean in terms of 2A-related amendments, right? Because I'll bet an amendment that prevented the federal government from collecting income taxes from individual Americans, but instead had to collect the money from the various states AFTER they deducted for federal mandates, would pass very easily. Make the states be a road block between the feds and the money and the political equation would change dramatically in this country.
__________________


Proud to belong to the NRA Members' Council of Santa Clara County

Disclaimer: All opinions are entirely my own.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 11-17-2010, 11:31 AM
CHS's Avatar
CHS CHS is offline
Moderator Emeritus
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Santa Ana, CA
Posts: 11,368
iTrader: 14 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoffmang View Post
It wasn't passed correctly, but the courts have already opined that its a political question that they will not enter into. The solution is for the Legislature to amend.

-Gene
So what's our recourse when Congress breaks the law? If the courts don't handle it, which is their job, is it time to break out the 2A?

I mean, this is a government that's supposed to be founded on a principle of checks and balances. When the government breaks the law, it's up to the other branches of government (or the people) to take them to task for it.

Seriously, there has to be a way for the people to challenge this.
__________________
Please read the Calguns Wiki
Quote:
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.
--Cesare, Marquis of Beccaria, "On Crimes and Punishment"
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 11-17-2010, 11:40 AM
AJAX22 AJAX22 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,725
iTrader: 111 / 100%
Default

Realistically, this is just an exercise in kicking over rocks to expose the sludge.

In theory a congressman could make a big deal out of this and try to get a 'fix' passed... But it's unlikely to succeed. It could bring some negative attention to some of the congresscritters (particularly Rangel) but it's not election season yet, and this isn't that popular an issue.

My hope is that by following through with this, if it does show impropriety it will piss a lot of gunnies off and motivate them to get involved/donate to the cause.

Sort of a 'this is why we need eternal vigilance' scenario.

It will also discourage such shenanigans again if they know that we can shine light on it and call them out.

Last edited by AJAX22; 11-17-2010 at 11:42 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 11-17-2010, 11:43 AM
yellowfin's Avatar
yellowfin yellowfin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 8,373
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Actually to get it reversed making a big deal out of it would be the opposite of what they should do. To succeed they could do it VERY quietly and it would very likely work. Put it in EVERY bill that goes through Congress.
__________________
"You can't stop insane people from doing insane things with insane laws. That's insane!" -- Penn Jillette
Quote:
Originally Posted by indiandave View Post
In Pennsylvania Your permit to carry concealed is called a License to carry fire arms. Other states call it a CCW. In New Jersey it's called a crime.
Discretionary Issue is the new Separate but Equal.
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 11-17-2010, 11:46 AM
nrakid88's Avatar
nrakid88 nrakid88 is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Santa Clarita
Posts: 3,288
iTrader: 38 / 100%
Default

Wow, I hope that there is video evidence of such a falsification. I think that would make me more enraged than I have ever been in my life. Waiting for the video.
__________________

5.56 vs. 308? http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/s...d.php?t=267737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cali-Shooter View Post
You are not a mall ninja. You are a defender of mall ninjas.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 11-17-2010, 11:52 AM
Bhobbs's Avatar
Bhobbs Bhobbs is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chino CA
Posts: 10,595
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Is this a pretty major revelation or is it some what common knowledge?
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 11-17-2010, 11:58 AM
yellowfin's Avatar
yellowfin yellowfin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 8,373
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

It's completely unknown to 99.9% of the public.
__________________
"You can't stop insane people from doing insane things with insane laws. That's insane!" -- Penn Jillette
Quote:
Originally Posted by indiandave View Post
In Pennsylvania Your permit to carry concealed is called a License to carry fire arms. Other states call it a CCW. In New Jersey it's called a crime.
Discretionary Issue is the new Separate but Equal.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 11-17-2010, 12:01 PM
AJAX22 AJAX22 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,725
iTrader: 111 / 100%
Default

It's one of those things that the old timers talk about, not a new thing, but since you had to be interested in making machine-guns back in 1986 to even know it was going on, and then be paying attention during the vote on that one particular amendment to the bill, its not common knowledge.

And no one ever has been able to show definitive proof of wrongdoing...

So it tends to get Lost in the background of various old guys grumbling about various conspiracies...

A video with a little background and information would likely make a lot of gunnies very angry.

Remember though The video may not show anything... And even if it does its unlikely to cause any significant changes.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 11-17-2010, 12:04 PM
Bhobbs's Avatar
Bhobbs Bhobbs is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chino CA
Posts: 10,595
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowfin View Post
It's completely unknown to 99.9% of the public.
I knew of the amendment but that's because I am pretty heavily involved in shooting. Most people that I go to the range with barely even understand the laws they are dealing with.

Maybe we should get this out there to the media some how. I know the MSM won't really run with it but it might get some air time somewhere.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 11-17-2010, 12:34 PM
AJAX22 AJAX22 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,725
iTrader: 111 / 100%
Default

I wouldn't get my hopes up on it beig covered by the mainstream.

If we can get it onto YouTube it MIGHT go viral, but that's hoping for a lot.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 11-17-2010, 12:38 PM
bulgron bulgron is offline
Veteran Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Santa Clara County
Posts: 2,784
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AJAX22 View Post
I wouldn't get my hopes up on it beig covered by the mainstream.

If we can get it onto YouTube it MIGHT go viral, but that's hoping for a lot.
It should go viral at least among gunnies, if the video is done right.
__________________


Proud to belong to the NRA Members' Council of Santa Clara County

Disclaimer: All opinions are entirely my own.
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 11-17-2010, 12:48 PM
mdimeo mdimeo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 608
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhobbs View Post
So if we could get enough pressure they might amend the bill to fix the mistake?
I, for one, am not in favor of spending significant political capital trying to get a veto-proof majority vote in both branches of Congress in favor of civilian machine guns. But feel free to write your congressman
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 11-17-2010, 1:20 PM
Bhobbs's Avatar
Bhobbs Bhobbs is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chino CA
Posts: 10,595
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdimeo View Post
I, for one, am not in favor of spending significant political capital trying to get a veto-proof majority vote in both branches of Congress in favor of civilian machine guns. But feel free to write your congressman
I do not want any of our efforts being used on MGs right now because there are more easily won cases to be made. All I am saying is this is an illegal amendment so in the future when there is nothing else to go after what options do we have to get it done.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 11-17-2010, 1:51 PM
yellowfin's Avatar
yellowfin yellowfin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 8,373
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

It doesn't take very much political capital at all if you repeal it the same way it was made.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 11-17-2010, 3:01 PM
xXBigJoeXx's Avatar
xXBigJoeXx xXBigJoeXx is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: San Diego
Posts: 288
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

I for one feel that any constitutional right especially the 2A and that includes MG & SMG is worth fighting for..... DO IT!
__________________
"Si Vis Pacem, Para Bellum" (If you seek peace, prepare for war)

"9MM - Because it won't matter when I put two in your chest and one in your head"

"If you want to make sure you hit the target, start shooting and whatever you hit call it the target." =P
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 11-17-2010, 3:39 PM
uyoga's Avatar
uyoga uyoga is offline
CGN/CGSSA Contributor - Lifetime
CGN Contributor - Lifetime
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Ventura County
Posts: 680
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

If each member of the new congress was to receive a copy of the DVD (535 copies), and a majority of these members were to decide to "do something about it" what, if any would be the harm? The result?
__________________
Non verbis sed operis
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 11-17-2010, 4:03 PM
mdimeo mdimeo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 608
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by uyoga View Post
If each member of the new congress was to receive a copy of the DVD (535 copies), and a majority of these members were to decide to "do something about it" what, if any would be the harm? The result?
I would go out on a limb and say no harm, but no results either.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 11-17-2010, 4:08 PM
AJAX22 AJAX22 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,725
iTrader: 111 / 100%
Default

It may not be as clear cut as we would like it to be.

The problem may be just procedural or there may be further issues.. I'm going to further review the congressional record tonite to see if I can't glean more info.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 11-17-2010, 4:09 PM
mdimeo mdimeo is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 608
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowfin View Post
It doesn't take very much political capital at all if you repeal it the same way it was made.
I would summarize the way it was made as "passed through congress via shennanigans, then signed by the president". Both are hard (very few members of congress have anything to gain by pushing for more civilian machine guns), and the second is currently impossible.

hey, it's a nice dream, and I don't want to rain on anyone's parade, but... will not happen in the short or medium term, and not really worth spending time on.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 11-17-2010, 4:38 PM
greasemonkey greasemonkey is offline
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: www.CalgunsFoundation.org
Posts: 2,526
iTrader: 0 / 0%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by xXBigJoeXx View Post
I for one feel that any constitutional right especially the 2A and that includes MG & SMG is worth fighting for..... DO IT!
Right but there's a tactful, organized way in which the .orgs are going after regaining our 2A rights. It's not like they're going to quit and go home after we get standard-caps in CA, they've got a road map all planned out on how to effectively fight the legal battles and establish our fundamental rights.
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 11-17-2010, 4:59 PM
Bhobbs's Avatar
Bhobbs Bhobbs is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Chino CA
Posts: 10,595
iTrader: 2 / 100%
Default

Can we expect pressure from current MG owners not to over turn the amendment and keep the cost of MGs high?
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 11-17-2010, 5:14 PM
yellowfin's Avatar
yellowfin yellowfin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 8,373
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bhobbs View Post
Can we expect pressure from current MG owners not to over turn the amendment and keep the cost of MGs high?
No. They'd gladly trade that for the ability to acquire new stuff.
__________________
"You can't stop insane people from doing insane things with insane laws. That's insane!" -- Penn Jillette
Quote:
Originally Posted by indiandave View Post
In Pennsylvania Your permit to carry concealed is called a License to carry fire arms. Other states call it a CCW. In New Jersey it's called a crime.
Discretionary Issue is the new Separate but Equal.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 11-17-2010, 5:15 PM
yellowfin's Avatar
yellowfin yellowfin is offline
Calguns Addict
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 8,373
iTrader: 1 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdimeo View Post
I would summarize the way it was made as "passed through congress via shennanigans, then signed by the president". Both are hard (very few members of congress have anything to gain by pushing for more civilian machine guns), and the second is currently impossible.

hey, it's a nice dream, and I don't want to rain on anyone's parade, but... will not happen in the short or medium term, and not really worth spending time on.
Two ways it can be done: must pass bills and so long nobody reads them bills. Neither require many members of Congress to do anything at all, and most will never know.
__________________
"You can't stop insane people from doing insane things with insane laws. That's insane!" -- Penn Jillette
Quote:
Originally Posted by indiandave View Post
In Pennsylvania Your permit to carry concealed is called a License to carry fire arms. Other states call it a CCW. In New Jersey it's called a crime.
Discretionary Issue is the new Separate but Equal.
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 11-17-2010, 5:42 PM
AJAX22 AJAX22 is offline
I need a LIFE!!
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 14,725
iTrader: 111 / 100%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mdimeo View Post
I would summarize the way it was made as "passed through congress via shennanigans, then signed by the president". Both are hard (very few members of congress have anything to gain by pushing for more civilian machine guns), and the second is currently impossible.

hey, it's a nice dream, and I don't want to rain on anyone's parade, but... will not happen in the short or medium term, and not really worth spending time on.
I've learned one thing in life.

Time passes

Might as well do something with it...
__________________
Youtube Channel Proto-Ordnance

Subscribe to Proto Ordnance
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 4:08 PM.




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Proudly hosted by GeoVario the Premier 2A host.
Calguns.net, the 'Calguns' name and all associated variants and logos are ® Trademark and © Copyright 2002-2016, Calguns.net an Incorporated Company All Rights Reserved.