Hughes Amendment to FOPA

[copterdoctor]

Someone over on arfcom dug up the fact that the Hughes Amendment was defeated, not passed, and made into law anyway. Some information is in the machine gun ban section in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firearm_Owners_Protection_Act
The arfcom thread is at
http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=1051358

 

[mikem317]

You learn something new everyday. It didn't follow the same parliamentary procedure, but this is how the 16th Amendment was passed.

 

[terraformer]

This has been well known for a long time. Congress has the power to reverse their "decision".

 

[soloman02]

This is a non issue. Boxer and even Hughes himself voted against it in the transcript. Hell will freeze before that is true. This is a clerical error.

There are only three options to repeal this unconstitutional law:

1: Congress passing a bill (or adding an amendment to a existing bill) with language striking down the law.
2: SCOTUS rules the law is unconstitutional due to infringing upon the 2nd amendment.
3: Revolution

Option 1 will only happen if we get congress critters with balls. Since none of them have balls and since most of the candidates for congress do not have balls, this will never happen. Option 1 is off the table.

Option 2 will happen if and when a case is brought before the SCOTUS. IMHO SCOTUS is made of of those who don't really give a damn about the Constitution. They only care about keeping the status quo (or in the case of the liberals on the bench, further destroying liberty). Option 2 is off the table.

Therefore I humbly submit that the only way to repeal the Hughes amendment is via option 3, revolution.

And as history shows, more often than not, revolutions are bloody and only sometimes have the correct outcome (liberty prevailing).

 

[ChangeTheGame]

This is a non issue. Boxer and even Hughes himself voted against it in the transcript. Hell will freeze before that is true. This is a clerical error.

Uh, wrong. Read it again, and you'll clearly see that Boxer and Hughes are listed under the Ayes. If this is a clerical error, and the vote should have been recorded as 298-124 against the amendment, then it would show Hughes voting No, which wouldn't make sense. Of course, the fact that people can own a machine gun from 25 years ago, yet can't own one from 25 days ago, whose basic design is exactly the same, doesn't make any sense either, now does it?

 

[soloman02]

Uh, wrong. Read it again, and you'll clearly see that Boxer and Hughes are listed under the Ayes. If this is a clerical error, and the vote should have been recorded as 298-124 against the amendment, then it would show Hughes voting No, which wouldn't make sense.

Ok I read it wrong, but it is still a non-issue as SCOTUS will not touch congress breaking its own parliamentary rules. The constitution only states that congress determines what it's rules are not how or even if they must be enforced.

Of course, the fact that people can own a machine gun from 25 years ago, yet can't own one from 25 days ago, whose basic design is exactly the same, doesn't make any sense either, now does it?

It actually makes perfect sense (from a control perspective) because I do not have $16K lying around for an m16 or even $4K for a mac-10. Therefore I do not have the ability to own a FA gun legally. They have effectively infringed upon my 2nd amendment right by making it too expensive for me to exercise that right. That is and was the goal of that amendment.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

 

[codenamepaul]

It would be very nice to see that stricken from the law.

 

[Scrivener]

There were elections under Stalin?

 

[cekim]

There were elections under Stalin?

In short, yes. He was even elected to his position after Lenin. I don't recall if there were regular party elections after he came to power, but they did happen. They were a farce of course... Political theater, as always.

 

[Alex9661]

There were elections under Stalin?

Yes, there were "elections", but for every position you had only ONE candidate from the "block of Communists and unaffiliated". Typically 99.5% (by official reports) voted for this candidate. Late in the afternoon schoolchildren were sent to the residences to collect the votes of those who haven't showed up, typically because of infirmity. Practically every able body went and voted for 2 reasons: doing something different than everyone else was risky and usually they vere selling a decent by Soviet standards selection of groceries right where the votes were collected, usually the local school or college.

 

[drumenigma]

I would love to see that amendment taken away. My wallet.....not so much.

 

[lupis42]

I would love to see that amendment taken away. My wallet.....not so much.

If that amendment went away, I'd bet that all the ammunition in the country would be sold within hours.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

the fact that people can own a machine gun from 25 years ago, yet can't own one from 25 days ago, whose basic design is exactly the same, doesn't make any sense either, now does it?

It makes sense once you understand the logic - those in power wanted to ban them completely, but they did not want to get into the business of confiscation of private property.

 

[center442]

The amendment should not have been added to the bill. The problem is that it was in the final bill when passed by the legislature and signed by the President. Under the Constitution, I'm afraid we're stuck with it.

In a perfect world, Congress would have immediately passed another bill amending the first bill to correct the error. It is still technically possible for them to do so, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

 

[terraformer]

In a perfect world, Congress would have immediately passed another bill amending the first bill to correct the error.

Reagan would have vetoed it had they. The administration wanted the ban. They had just used executive power to shut down imports of scary cheap guns. Believe me, this was perfect for them. They got it through without having to take a political hit on it. I would not be surprised if they hadn't been involved in the sneaking it back in. I have a very dim view of Reagan.

It is still technically possible for them to do so, but I wouldn't hold my breath.

Yeah, never going to happen and the courts won't help here. Scalia said as much in his brief and in his questioning in the heller case.

 

[mikem317]

I support banning bans on imported firearms.

 

[cekim]

I support banning bans on imported firearms.

I support the original ban on bans called "enumerated powers"...

 

[GSG]

In short, yes. He was even elected to his position after Lenin. I don't recall if there were regular party elections after he came to power, but they did happen. They were a farce of course... Political theater, as always.

Kinda like this:

If that amendment went away, I'd bet that all the ammunition in the country would be sold within hours.

It would be totally worth having to live through another year or two ammo shortage.

I support banning bans on imported firearms.

Me too. Jimenez Arms needs some foreign competition.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Yes, there were "elections", but for every position you had only ONE candidate from the "block of Communists and unaffiliated". Typically 99.5% (by official reports) voted for this candidate.

This is very similar to how the Preisdent of the Senate is selected in MA. Votes are public; senators voting for the person who does not prevail is punished (but with poor committee assignments and a basement office, not torture or disappearance); so all senators have to guess who the front runner is and cast their vote for that person.

 

[GSG]

This is very similar to how the Preisdent of the Senate is selected in MA. Votes are public; senators voting for the person who does not prevail is punished (but with poor committee assignments and a basement office, not torture or disappearance); so all senators have to guess who the front runner is and cast their vote for that person.

Why am I not surprised?

 

[Remsport Mfg]

This law did not raise the price for FA guns greed did. Nowhere in this law's wording did it set any prices. Thank your fellow gun owners and gun dealers for your FA purchase restrictions based on price. The right to own these gun was not taken away, just no new guns are available.

 

[lupis42]

This law did not raise the price for FA guns greed did. Nowhere in this law's wording did it set any prices. Thank your fellow gun owners and gun dealers for your FA purchase restrictions based on price. The right to own these gun was not taken away, just no new guns are available.

No, the law simply put a permanent cap on supply. Since demand was likely to increase over time, and supply can only decrease over time, that law guaranteed that the price would rise.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

Thank your fellow gun owners and gun dealers for your FA purchase restrictions based on price.

The laws of economics dictate that there are only one of two possibilities when the supply of an in-demand product is artificially limited:

1. The price will go up .OR.
2. Availability will go down

There are no other possible outcomes.

Let's suppose every FA owner, dealer and prospective owner decided to be a nice guy and sell the full autos for $100 over the semi-auto equivalent. If would not be possible to find a full auto for sale unless a very good friend was getting rid of his.

Just look at rent controlled apartments in NYC. Rent control sounds nice when you're looking for an apartment ... until you actually try to find one that is available.

 

[cekim]

Thank your fellow gun owners and gun dealers for your FA purchase restrictions based on price.

They are blameless. They are simply responding to the market conditions created by the government. No need to thank them or blame them, but rather strip the power from your government to ban things.

 

[Rob Boudrie]

I was quoting another post, the "thank your fellow gun owners..." statement was not mine (but I failed to put the quote tag on it before I edited my post)

 

[drgrant]

This law did not raise the price for FA guns greed did. Nowhere in this law's wording did it set any prices. Thank your fellow gun owners and gun dealers for your FA purchase restrictions based on price.

As others have indicated, it's supply and demand economics. Why would someone settle for selling something for what they paid for it when a C3 dealer might give them thousands of dollars more for it?

Let's pretend for a minute there were price controls on the machine guns, and that it could only be sold for its original price... how many machine guns do you think you would be able to buy? Probably not many.... the supply situation would actually be WORSE than it is now, because collectors would own a lot more, and be sitting on a lot more.

-Mike

 

[AJAX22]

Footage is here

 

[cekim]

As others have indicated, it's supply and demand economics. Why would someone settle for selling something for what they paid for it when a C3 dealer might give them thousands of dollars more for it?

Let's pretend for a minute there were price controls on the machine guns, and that it could only be sold for its original price... how many machine guns do you think you would be able to buy? Probably not many.... the supply situation would actually be WORSE than it is now, because collectors would own a lot more, and be sitting on a lot more.

-Mike

Those darn capitalists...

Supply and demand is a beautiful thing. Without government or regulation, price can be found that does not concern itself with your race, color, creed, wealth, political stature, religion or anything else other than what you and your fellow buyers are willing to pay.

If you think the price is too high - do not pay it - if you are right, your failure to buy will cause the price to go down. If someone else buys it for as much or more than you were not willing to pay - YOU WERE WRONG.